Public Perceptions of CCS: A Focus on the Sub-National Level

Jennie C. StephensAssistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy (ES&P)

Department of International Development, Community and Environment (IDCE)

Associate, Energy Technology Innovation Policy Group Harvard Kennedy School

November 15, 2010

Levels of Public Perception

Local/regional level– Communities facing actual CCS projects

General macro level– More abstract perceptions of CCS technology’s

risks and benefits

Research & DevelopmentR&D

Demonstration

Deployment

Technology Innovation SystemsGovernment

Non-governmental actors

Other social factors

Jennie C. Stephens

Non-Governmental Actors Influencing CCS Development

Fossil fuel industry Oil and gas, coal

Environmental community

Scientific community

Communities facing proposed projects

Perceptions of climate-mitigation-technology readiness linked to timeframe

Existing technologies Need implementation strategiesNear-term bridging technology

Hoffert et al2002Pacala & Socolow

2004

Revolutionary technical advancement required

Now Next century

Call for intensive increase in R&D

Call for deployment of existing technology

Need for bothCompliment each other

Different Perceptions of CCS Readiness and Timeframe

Some Recurring Themes– Awareness and understanding is low – but growing– Communication – Messenger – expertise and trustworthiness

• Pseudo opinions – Perceptions often fickle, easily changed with new information

– Many different publics• Different issues with CCS-host communities and the general public

– Perceptions of risks and benefits integrally related • if perceived benefits are high perceived risks are often lower

– Connection with coal “No coal without CCS” …“No CCS because it promotes coal”

– Need for CCS to be understood in broader context of portfiolio of other energy technology options

– Funding for CCS communication– Orientation of research . Much appears to be “how to” for industry

and government• Need for self-reflection of social science researchers

Public Perception, Communication, and Social Acceptance

Public Perception, Communication, and Social Acceptance

• Multiple Research Approaches and Foci– Surveys - with and without information, comparative

studies– Media analysis- discourse analysis– Controlled psychological experiments – Focus groups, Dialogue sessions with analysis– Interviews

• Multiple Foci– Role of NGOs– CCS Experts– Learning– Risk Communication

CO2 capture (Separation and

compression)

CO2 storage (including measurement,

monitoring, and verification) Transport

Individual components commercially available But not yet integrated or demonstrated at scale

Industrial processes small scale Several underground CO2 storage sites

each ~ 1 MtCO2/yearEOR-CO2 injection experience

Advancement of CCS includes integration, scaling-up and demonstration

1100 miles of CO2 Pipeline for EOR

Seemingly Intractable Coal-Climate DilemmaCarbon capture & storage (CCS) has become critical in many discussions on the future of coal

FutureGen, Illinois, USA •Public-private partnership, announced February 2003 as flagship program for Bush Administration

•Initially planned to be a zero emissions coal fired power plant (275MW)

- Simultaneously demonstrating IGCC, CCS, & hydrogen production

•Extensive competitive site selection process resulted in high degree of outreach and awareness

•Restructured in 2008 (Bush) and again 2010 (Obama).

•Community withdrew summer 2010 when announced not going to include building a new power plant

Environmental NGOs(Wong-Parodi, Ray, and Farrell, 2008)

Categorized US Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) as:enthusiastsprudents neutral but view CCS as necessary

reluctants “a terrible idea that we desperately need”

opponents

Environmental NGOs’ Perceptions of Geologic Sequestration (Wong-Parodi et al, 2008)

SocialPublic Acceptance

Risk perceptions

Institutional

Restructured or regulated

Importer exporter

Regulatory and LegalRenewable Portfolio StandardsState energy regulations and laws

Political

Energy/climate goals

Power of constitu

entsEconomicCost of electricityEmployment Taxes

TechnicalResource availability

Existing infrastructure

Energy Technology Deployment

Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED):An integrated research framework to understand complexity of influences

Designed to capture complex interactions among societal and technological barriers preventing the change required to stabilize CO2 for climate change mitigation.

Stephens, J.C., Wilson, E.J. and Peterson, T.R., 2008. Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED): An integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75: 1224-1246.

Mixed-methods approach to characterizing socio-political context of wind and CCS

Low wind deployment

High wind deployment

Weak policy MT TX

Strong policy MA MN

Interviews of state-level energy technology stakeholdersMedia analysis of state-level newspapers

Level of Interest in CCS

Strong Weak

TX MT MN MA

Frame analysis of risks and benefitsFrames Risks Benefits

Technical Technological limitations and uncertainty

Technological reliability, sophistication, and advancements

Economic Expensive, destabilizes local economy, i.e. reduces tourism,

Low cost, strengthen economy (jobs, tourism, etc.), free resource

Environmental Negative environmental consequences (bird-kills, habitat loss)

Positive environmental consequences (reduce carbon emission, reduce air pollution)

Health & Safety Healthy or safety concerns (glare, navigation, radar, worker safety)

Health and safety improvements (i.e. reduce respiratory problems)

Political Negative political ramifications, image, reputation of state or political leaders. Threat to military or political security

Positive political ramifications i.e. being a leader, closer to political goals, energy independence and energy security

Aestheticand Cultural

Negative visual impacts. Negative impacts on cultural, historical, or recreational sites, negative community impact.

Positive visual impacts i.e. positive community impact, positive enhance local culture, bring community together.

We developed six categories of risk and benefit frames adapting and building on the functional subsystems within Luhmann’s social theory of ecological communication

(Luhmann 1989)

Media Analysis: An Approach to Probe and Compare Public Discourse

The media…. – provides a representation of public discourse

(Gamson and Modigliani 1989)

– has potential to influence public perception and reinforce or potentially change the direction and scope of public discourse on a particular issue (McCombs 2004)

A comparison of public discourse in four different states

Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Texas

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Num

ber o

f Art

icle

s

Newspaper Reporting Over TimeMassachusetts

Minnesota

Montana

Texas

Texas

Frequency of CCS Newspaper Articles 1990-2008

2003 Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships

0102030405060708090

100

Num

ber o

f Art

icle

s

Newspaper Reporting on CCS

Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Texas

State Breakdown of CCS articles 1990-2008

Comparative Breakdown of CCS Risk and Benefit Frames by State

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Risks Benefits Risks Benefits Risks Benefits Risks Benefits

Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Texas

Pe

rce

nt C

od

ed

Utte

ran

ces

Technical

Political & Legal

Other

Health & Safety

Environmental

Economic

Aesthetic

Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Texas

Limited opportunity for CCS

No regional government support for CCS

Comparative State-Level Discourse on CCS

Limited state-level discourse and limited opportunities for CCS

No regional government support for CCS projects

Strongest interest in CCS

Enhanced Oil Recovery

Generally positive portrayal of CCS

Competition for big demonstration projectFuturGen resulted in more coverage

Intense coal use

Governor interested in advancing CCS

More positive portrayal of CCS

Actual projects

General Need for More Social Science Research on Energy Technologies

Need for better synchronization of technical R&D and social science R&D– investigating human dimensions and social

dynamics of technology design, acceptance, and use

– Need for social science to be integrated into US Department of Energy: primarily technologyical R&D. Webler and Tuler 2010 Energy Policy

Some Recurring Themes– Awareness and understanding is low – but growing– Communication – Messenger – expertise and trustworthiness

• Pseudo opinions – Perceptions often fickle, easily changed with new information

– Many different publics• Different issues with CCS-host communities and the general public

– Perceptions of risks and benefits integrally related • if perceived benefits are high perceived risks are often lower

– Connection with coal “No coal without CCS” …“No CCS because it promotes coal”

– Need for CCS to be understood in broader context of portfiolio of other energy technology options

– Funding for CCS communication– Orientation of research . Much appears to be “how to” for industry

and government• Need for self-reflection of social science researchers

Public Perception, Communication, and Social Acceptance

Conclusions

• Very different perceptions and discourse in different states. – Substantial variation in visions/perceptions of CCS

potential risks and benefits.

• Public-perception has strong potential to influence development of CCS technology

• Perceptions of CCS’ benefits related to perceptions of need to mitigate climate change

• NIMBY, NUMBY and BANANA