‘Tell me what you Think about the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide’: Towards a Fuller Understanding of Public Perceptions of CCS (original) (raw)
Related papers
2015
Research has been conducted in the ECO2 project to identify the core factors and processes which determine the public perception of CO 2 geological storage, attempting to advance the state of the art by investigating in-depth psychological and psychodynamic dimensions. The aim was not only to build upon previous work to describe and explain the present representations of the technology, but rather to try to identify the constitutive elements that influence them. To this end, different methods and approaches were used in Italy and Scotland, from Emotional Text Analysis to the Voice Centred approach, from psychodynamic elaboration to cognitive approach analysis. Creating such opportunities, with the participation of different stakeholders, such as politicians, operators, public authorities, researchers and civil society organisations, could support the development of a more advanced understanding of the possible role of CO 2 geological storage in our society. In specific situations, such as the implementation of a CCS facility, this approach could help decision making processes and the roll out of projects. wrote a series of Briefing Notes on CCS, intended for stakeholders and informed / curious members of the public who are willing to devote 30 minutes of their time in reading each of the Notes. No prior expert knowledge is assumed, but a general technical understanding is likely to help comprehension of the Briefing Notes.
Lay perceptions of carbon capture and storage technology
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2010
The extent of social acceptance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is likely to significantly influence the sustainable development of CO 2 storage projects. Acceptance of CCS by the key stakeholders (policy makers, the general public, the media and the local community), linked to specific projects, as well as how the technology is communicated about and perceived by the public, have become matters of interest for the social sciences. This article reports on an investigation of the public perception of CCS technology in Spain. Individuals' views on CCS are analysed through focus groups with lay citizens using ''stimulus materials''. As the analysis shows, lay views of CCS differ significantly from the views of decision-makers and experts. Public concerns and reactions to CCS technology and potential projects, as well as the degree of consensus on its acceptance or rejection are detailed. Implications for the future use of CCS are discussed. ß
Climate Policy
A series of meetings of two 'Citizen Panels' were held to explore public perceptions of off-shore carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) capture and storage (CCS). In addition, a face-to-face survey of 212 randomly selected individuals was conducted. We found that, on first hearing about CCS in the absence of any information on its purpose, the majority of people either do not have an opinion at all or have a somewhat negative perspective. However, when (even limited) information is provided on the role of CO 2 storage in reducing CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere, opinion shifts towards expressing slight support for the concept. Support depends, however, upon concern about human-caused climate change, plus recognition of the need for major reductions in CO 2 emissions. It also depends upon CCS being seen as just one part of a wider strategy for achieving significant cuts in CO 2 emissions. A portfolio including renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency, and lifestyle change to reduce demand was generally favoured. CCS can be part of such a portfolio, but wind, wave, tidal, solar and energy efficiency were preferred. It was felt that uncertainties concerning the potential risks of CCS had to be better addressed and reduced; in particular the risks of accidents and leakage (including the potential environmental, ecosystem and human health impacts which might result from leakage).
Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage
Energy policy, 2007
This article discusses public acceptance of carbon capture and storage (CCS). Responses by citizens are described in relation to responses by professionally involved actors. Interviews with members of the government, industry and environmental NGOs showed that these professional actors are interested in starting up storage projects, based on thorough evaluation processes, including discussions on multi-actor working groups. As appeared from a survey among citizens living near a potential storage site (N ¼ 103), public attitudes in general were slightly positive, but attitudes towards storage nearby were slightly negative. The general public appeared to have little knowledge about CO 2 -storage, and have little desire for more information. Under these circumstances, trust in the professional actors is particularly important. NGOs were found to be trusted most, and industry least by the general public. Trust in each of the three actors appeared to depend on perceived competence and intentions, which in turn were found to be related to perceived similarity of goals and thinking between trustee and trustor. Implications for communication about CCS are discussed. r
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) experts’ attitudes to and experience with public engagement
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2018
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is widely seen as a key technology for mitigating climate change. Public engagement with CCS is important for a range of reasons, but previous work has not explored the perceived rationales for, or benefits of, public engagement amongst CCS experts (including those who engage the public themselves). Here, we present mixed-methods research (comprising expert interviews and an online survey) to elucidate these rationales, and expose CCS expert views of public engagement. Our findings indicate some differences in perceptions of public engagement with CCS (and of the risks and benefits of CCS) between those who engage directly with the public and those who do not: the former tend to have a more nuanced view of engagement, and are also more enthusiastic about the benefits of CCS, than the latter. Overall, CCS experts recognise the importance of public engagement for the roll-out of CCS for both substantive and instrumental rationales, and are largely aware of the range of factors (knowledge, values, trust, etc.) influencing public engagement. Nevertheless, the relatively low salience of early and substantive engagement amongst CCS experts suggests there is room for improving the flow of learning from the public engagement research literature to those charged with delivering it. Keywords Carbon capture and storage; expert perceptions; public engagement; mixed-methods Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) experts' attitudes to and experience with public engagement Underlying instrumental rationales is a 'deficit model' of the public as lacking in requisite technical information to make 'correct' decisions; and (usually) an assumption that 'the public' is homogenous. In contrast to this, research shows that public views and contexts are highly varied and that knowledge about technical issues is a poor predictor of attitudes, risk perceptions or behaviour (e.g., Burgess et al., 1998). Indeed, knowledge can often increase opposition as well as support for research or policy, since individuals become more discriminating of evidence and risk regulation arrangements (e.g., Evans & Durant, 1995; Kahan et al., 2012). Critiques of the deficit model have led to development of more 'upstream' and two-way forms of public engagement, adopted for substantive and normative rationales, as well as a recognition of the emergent and diverse contexts for public engagement (Chilvers & Kearnes, 2016). Engaging the public early can avoid attitudes becoming polarized, and can ensure public concerns and values are fed into decision-making in a genuine wayrather than after options have been closed down (Rogers-Hayden & Pidgeon, 2007). Indeed, more participatory and democratic forms of public engagement, if organized appropriately, can lead to more sustainable outcomes as well as improved relationships (Dietz & Stern, 2008; Niemeyer, 2013). Evidence of the lay-expert divide in risk perception is also pertinent to the reasons for engagement. Slovic (2000) showed that across a range of risks, experts and non-experts often ranked them in very different ways. Weber (2010) argues this disparity is due to different information processing styles, with experts tending to use more deliberative and analytic ('slow') processing, whereas the public rely more on direct experience and heuristic ('fast') processing. Other work highlights more social and cultural explanations for lay-expert divergence in risk perception (Pidgeon et al., 2003; Kahan et al., 2010), for example that expert samples have a distinct composition (e.g., male, white) that does not reflect the broader the public, many of whom (e.g., women, ethnic minorities) may be more exposed to different risks. This so-called 'white male' effect helps explain why risks may be defined differently by expert and non-expert groups (Flynn et al., 1994). Together, the risk perception literature draws attention to lay-expert divergence, which is often not only due to differences in amount or type of knowledge but also to different decision-making contexts, epistemologies, values and resources (e.g., Wynne, 1991; Irwin et al., 1999). This lends support to undertaking public engagement for substantive reasons: since experts' perceptions may be partial, a fuller and more robust analysis of risk issues and identification of solutions is more likely with broader representation of views and values. 2.2 Public engagement with CCS A substantial body of knowledge has emerged in the last decade on public perceptions of CCS, comprising both qualitative and quantitative studies. These highlight very low public awareness of CCS (Demski et al., 2013; Curry et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2016). For the minority that has views, these are often mixed: concerns include the long-term viability ('temporizing') of CCS, its safety (e.g., risk of CO2 leaks, explosion), its association with coal mining, cost, and the ability of institutions to
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2011
Previous research has primarily addressed people's perceptions of the properties of CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) technology to predict public acceptance of this climate change mitigation option. This paper highlights another influential factor: Public trust in CCS stakeholders. Recent experimental research is reviewed and discussed to show that lay people's trust in stakeholders affects their acceptance of CCS implementation. This research further shows that people tend to trust environmental NGOs more than industrial stakeholders. This is caused by their perceptions of organizational motives-public-serving motives in the case of environmental NGOs and organization-serving motives in the case of industrial organizations-rather than by their perceptions of organizational competence concerning the issue. Stakeholders engender most trust by communicating arguments that are congruent with the organizational motives they are expected to act upon. Finally, people more readily accept CCS policy decisions when they know that relevant stakeholders receive an opportunity to voice their opinions in the decisionmaking process. The value of experimental research in the applied context of CCS and the practical implications of this research are discussed.