Perceptions of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in different policy scenarios - PubMed (original) (raw)

Perceptions of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in different policy scenarios

Rob Bellamy et al. Nat Commun. 2019.

Abstract

There is growing interest in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a possible technology for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. In the first study of its kind, we investigate whether and how different forms of incentivisation impact on public perceptions of this technology. We develop a new experimental method to triangulate perceptions of BECCS in different policy scenarios through quantitative measurement and qualitative elicitation. Here we show that the type of policy instrument used to incentivise BECCS significantly affects perceptions of the technology itself. While we find approval of coercive and persuasion-based policy scenarios for incentivisation, supportive instruments proved polarising. Payments based on the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere were approved, but guarantees of higher prices for producers selling energy derived from BECCS were strongly opposed. We conclude that public support for BECCS is inextricably linked to attitudes towards the policies through which it is incentivised.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Support for different dimensions of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage at the start of the experiment (% of participants, n = 33). Attitudes were elicited on a four-point scale (1 = strongly oppose, 2 = somewhat oppose, 3 = somewhat support, 4 = strongly support). The questions to which each dimension of BECCS pertains can be found in Supplementary Note 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Support for different policy scenarios and instruments for incentivising bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (% of participants, group 1 n = 11, group 2 n = 12, group 3 n = 10). Attitudes were elicited on a four-point scale (1 = strongly oppose, 2 = somewhat oppose, 3 = somewhat support, 4 = strongly support). The questions to which each dimension of BECCS pertains can be found in Supplementary Note 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Differences in support for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage between groups before and after exposure to, and deliberation on, policy scenarios (*p < 0.05, n.s. = not significant, n = 33). Two-headed arrows indicate statistical tests of difference between the designated different groups, where values provided are the Pearson's _χ_2 statistic. Single-headed arrows indicate statistical tests of difference on the designated same group before and after discussion of the policy scenarios, where values provided are the Wilcoxon's signed-rank test Z statistic

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Anderson K, Peters G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science. 2016;354:182–183. doi: 10.1126/science.aah4567. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van Vuuren D, Hof A, van Sluisveld M, Riahi K. Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed. Nat. Energy. 2017;2:902–904. doi: 10.1038/s41560-017-0055-2. - DOI
    1. Fridahl M. Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Energ. Policy. 2017;104:89–99. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.050. - DOI
    1. Bellamy R, Healey P. ‘Slippery slope’ or ‘uphill struggle’? Expert scenarios of geoengineering research and development. Environ. Sci. Policy. 2018;83:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.021. - DOI
    1. Geden, O., Scott, V. & Palmer, J. Integrating carbon dioxide removal into EU climate policy: prospects for a paradigm shift. WIREs Clim. Change9, e521 (2018).

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources