Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage

Abstract

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) involves trapping carbon dioxide (CO 2) from power generation and heavy industrial processes and directing it into long-term geological storage (e.g., in depleted oil fields or saline aquifers). In doing so, CCS could facilitate global carbon abatement efforts. Yet, it remains controversial with high-profile public opposition to particular CCS developments. For instrumental, normative and substantive reasons, it is increasingly recognised that public acceptance of CCS as a vital precondition for its commercial-scale rollout. While much is known about factors influencing public support for CCS, relatively few cross-national studies have so far been undertaken. Here, we present findings from a large-scale international experimental study of public perceptions of CCS, to examine how individual, geographical and informational factors influence support for CCS. In particular, we compare the lens through which CCS is seenas a 'techno-fix' climate change solution, as reusing a waste product (through Carbon Dioxide Utilisation [CDU]), or as part of a systemic approach to climate change mitigation. Pairing CCS with CDU led to higher support for CCS, although information frames interacted with national and individual-level factors. Depending on which CCS lens is chosen, different groups will be more or less likely to support CCS implementation. As with other issues, targeting CCS information to audience values is likely to be more effective than untargeted communication. Our findings also show mentioning (modest) costs of deploying CCS can lead to lower support. Discussing CCS costs should be done in the context of costs of broader energy system transformation and of not mitigating climate change so that the public can deliberate over the relative risks and benefits of CCS and alternatives in the context of broader sustainability pathways.

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

“…Karimi et al [36] found that although cultural characteristics did influence public perceptions of CCS and its potential risks, responses were unlikely to be predicted by cultural factors alone, highlighting the critical role of contingent factors at a local scale. Whitmarsh et al [10] found marked differences in awareness of and support for CCS between the countries included in the study (Netherlands, Canada, Norway, USA, UK). The greatest support was reported in the UK where, for example, storage sites will be located offshore and the lowest in the Netherlands, which has previously seen high-profile opposition to a proposed project [37].…”

“…One of the earliest studies, which does distinguish between different sources of CO 2 , [9], found that fossil fuel sources of CO 2 were perceived less favourably by survey respondents than industrial or bioenergy sources. Whilst research has started to consider different applications for carbon capture (e.g., carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) [10]), we found that BECCS is often compared with other CDR technologies (e.g., [11]), or other sources of CO 2, (e.g., [12,13]) rather than considered on its own. More favourable responses to CCS have been observed when it is combined with bioenergy and increased support has been reported for CCU-notably amongst climate sceptics, for whom addressing concerns about waste carried greater traction than climate change mitigation [10].…”

“…Whilst research has started to consider different applications for carbon capture (e.g., carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) [10]), we found that BECCS is often compared with other CDR technologies (e.g., [11]), or other sources of CO 2, (e.g., [12,13]) rather than considered on its own. More favourable responses to CCS have been observed when it is combined with bioenergy and increased support has been reported for CCU-notably amongst climate sceptics, for whom addressing concerns about waste carried greater traction than climate change mitigation [10]. Utilisation of captured CO 2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) could provide a revenue stream to reduce the costs and accelerate CCS infrastructure development [14,15].…”

“…Storage has been shown to be the most contentious part of the CCS chain (e.g., [10,[18][19][20]) whereby people living closer to storage sites express a lower acceptance of CCS [19] and offshore storage is more likely to be seen as acceptable (e.g., [21]). These findings are relevant for BECCS, and acceptance of storage has been shown to depend on national policy contexts, local industry and identity, and perceived risks and benefits (e.g., [18]).…”

“…Cross-national studies have explored how different factors, e.g., geographical, social, psychological and informational [10], and cultural [36], affect views on CCS amongst lay publics. Karimi et al [36] found that although cultural characteristics did influence public perceptions of CCS and its potential risks, responses were unlikely to be predicted by cultural factors alone, highlighting the critical role of contingent factors at a local scale.…”