perspectives on ccs · 2010-12-08 · results from the extended icq •evaluation of ccs was...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
www.ecn.nl
Perspectives on CCS Public awareness, knowledge, perceptions
and strategies for engagement
![Page 2: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Energy Research Centre of the
Netherlands (ECN)
• Policy studies: one of many units, only non-
technical
• Adviser Dutch government and EC on energy
policy issues
• Multidisciplinary team of researchers.
Research areas: socio-technical innovation, energy
end-user behaviour, social acceptance of new
energy technologies, public perceptions on new
technologies.
November 23rd2
![Page 3: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Research on CCS
• CATO II: Dutch national R&D programme that
included social-psychological research on
perceptions
• NearCO2: Europan FP7 reseach programmeCambridge Judge Business School; Tyndal Centre Manchester;
Fraunhofer Institute; Ciemat; IEEP (Institute for European
Environmental Policy); ECN
• Previous projects: CREATE ACCEPTANCE (FP6)
November 23rd3
![Page 4: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Table of Contents
1. Public perceptions: understanding key factors
affecting public perceptions; trends in perceptions
over the years
2. Social acceptance: understanding what affects
opinions and attitudes regarding specific projects
3. Implications of this research for communication
and engagement approaches in CCS projects
November 23rd4
![Page 5: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
1. Social psychological research:
public awareness
Marjolein de Best-Waldhober, Suzanne Brunsting, Mia
Paukovic (ECN)
• 21Minutes survey (2009): Topics Dutch are most
worried about; Environment 12th highest ranked,
climate change 14th highest ranked
November 23rd5
![Page 6: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Public awareness of new technology: CCS
Low awareness in Australia, USA, Japan, Canada, UK, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands:
Between 4% and 29.9% can give some kind of answer as to what CCS is.
(Ashworth et al, 2006, 2009; de Best-Waldhober et al, 2006, 2008; Ha Duong et al, 2009; Itaoka et al, 2008; Reiner et al, 2006; Sharp et al, 2006)
• Dutch representative sample in 2009: “Do you know of CO2 capture and storage (CCS)?
50% never heard of
45% a bit
5% claims to know quite a bit
November 23rd6
![Page 7: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Public awareness of new technology: CCS
• Dutch representative samples in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008: Hardly increase in awareness over time
November 23rd7
![Page 8: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Knowledge
The general population does not know much about
CCS, but a substantial percentage also does not
know that:
-CO2 is a greenhouse gas……………………………..…....38,9%
- 95% of energy used in NL comes from coal, gas or
oil……………………………………………………………50,7%
- generation of electricity from natural gas leads to
emission of CO2 …………………………………………....42%
November 23rd8
![Page 9: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Pseudo opinions
Have you heard of large, modern coal fired power plants where
CO2 is captured and stored underground?
• -no (not heard of) 68%
• -a little 28%
• -yes 4%
Can you give this technology a grade?
• “No opinion” 27%
• gives a grade 73%
November 23rd9
![Page 10: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Measuring public opinion on an unknown
technology
• Many researchers inform their respondents
- In surveys with information to read or to
evaluate
- In focus groups with experts explaining
• Both difficult and time consuming
• Risk of bias
November 23rd10
![Page 11: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Information-Choice Questionnaire (CATO II)
Marjolein de Best-Waldhober, Mia Paukovic, Suzanne
Brunsting
• Policy problem
• Information on policy problem and on consequences
of policy options
• Decision aid
November 23rd11
![Page 12: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Results from the extended ICQ
• Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey(N=1000); people were on average slightly negative about CCS and most people neither chose it as their preferred option nor rejected it.
• Results from the post-survey interview revealed:
– More than half is still concerned about the safety of storage, because of
• perceived risks
• perceived uncertainty and lack of knowledge among experts.
– Other remaining concerns were: hassle and safety pipelines, dislike use of fossil fuels, CCS is „dirty‟ and complicated.
– Questions remaining were: safety of storage, economicimplications, project plans.
November 23rd
12
![Page 13: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Focus groups (NearCO2)
Paul Upham and Thomas Roberts (and NearCO2 partners)
6 focus groups (UK, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Belgium and
Spain).
Findings:
• commonality in opinion and concerns across the six countries
• majority of the participants: unfamiliar with the concept of CCS
• Majority: sceptical of information that they consider originating from
industry or government
• Concerns: not allayed by the information provided.
November 23rd
13
![Page 14: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Focus groups (NearCO2)
Findings:
• Evidence of a shift from initial uncertainty about CCS to negative
positions
• CCS was generally seen as an uncertain, end-of-pipe technology
that will perpetuate fossil-fuel dependence.
• The participants were far from convinced that CO2 can be stored
securely for thousands of years.
Important lesson for communicating information about CCS: need to
improve the level of trust between the general public and the key
advocates of CCS, namely government and industry.
November 23rd
14
![Page 15: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
2. Research on social acceptance What happened in Barendrecht?
Suzanne Brunsting, Ynke Feenstra, Tom Mikunda
November 23rd15
![Page 16: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Common Project Development:
Decide-Announce-Defend
• Focus on permitting procedure
• Concerns addressed as legally required
• „Powerless‟ opponents
• No discussion of alternatives/adaptations
• Information/persuasion, no participation
• Increasing public opposition
• Project delay
• Deadlock
November 23rd16
![Page 17: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Deadlock: Proponents vs Opponents
November 23rd17
![Page 18: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
3. Implications for engagement and
communication in CCS projects
- Case of Barendrecht and other cases (in 4
countries) in NearCO2 project
- Findings earlier work and case studies
- Lessons learned from CREATE ACCEPTANCE
project
November 23rd18
![Page 19: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Social psychological research conclusions:
• Substantial part of the Dutch is unaware of global warming and energy
transition.
• Substantial uncertainties exist in people‟s knowledge
• Uninformed opinions are hardly predictive of public opinion
• Stakeholders such as Shell, Greenpeace, research institutes,
government, can reach consensus on information regarding
consequences of options
• Opinion after information is based mostly on information, but not
completely
• After valid and balanced expert information, most people are enthusiastic
about efficiency, wind and biomass, but not so enthusiastic about CCS
• Communication can remove several uncertainties but some remain
• Awareness CCS in general population is slightly increasing
• This increase does not match the steep increase in media attention for
CCS
November 23rd19
![Page 20: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Lessons:
Communication and Information
• Project developer shouldn‟t assume certain level
of knowledge
• Communication needs to address wider themes of
climate change, energy transition, not just CCS
• Need for more information about safety
• Communication should fit the information needs of
diverse target groups (address concerns)
• Use of appropriate communication channels
November 23rd20
![Page 21: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Lessons:
Timing
• many uninformed people, subject to „manipulation‟
early engagement, before polarization
Trust
• need to enhance trust between the general public
and the key advocates of CCS, namely
government and industry
• trust in information source articulation of
diverging views; collaborative information provision
• build trust through transparent process
November 23rd21
![Page 22: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Is this specific for CCS?
• No: similar debates and controversies elsewhere
• Main concerns might be different: with CCS concerns about risks
• Public opinion on CCS is no predictor of local opinion regarding
a specific project
• For any infrastructure development, most local stakeholders are
„conditional supporters‟
• The process of engagement should address these conditions for
these can be negotiated.
• Cost-benefit sharing mechanisms!
Furthermore..
November 23rd22
![Page 23: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
ESTEEM tool for CCS
• A tool to facilitate the proces of engaging local
stakeholders in the project planning and development
of energy projects.
• Lessons that are not yet part of the tool will be added
to make it more suitable for CCS projects
November 23rd23
![Page 24: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Next steps in NearCO2 project:
- Translate lessons into useful practical tools for CCS
project developers
- Learn more about project developers‟ considerations
- Generate policy recommendations
Results available: summer 2011
November 23rd24
![Page 25: Perspectives on CCS · 2010-12-08 · Results from the extended ICQ •Evaluation of CCS was similar to results from the 2007 survey (N=1000); people were on average slightly negative](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042417/5f329c40d1b7b74fcb1785de/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
November 23rd
NearCO2 project website:
http://www.communicationnearco2.eu/home/
Thank you
Sylvia Breukers: [email protected]
25