Initial Public Perceptions of Deep Geological and Oceanic Disposal of Carbon Dioxide

Palmgren, Claire; Morgan, M. Granger; Bruin, Wändi Bruine de; Keith, David W.

doi:10.1021/es040400c

Cited by 150 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(32 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results indicated that, at baseline, participants' feelings about CCS were slightly positive, while their perceived knowledge was relatively low, which replicates findings of previous CCS studies (Huijts et al, 2007;Palmgren et al, 2004;Shackley et al, 2005;Sharp et al, 2009;Wallquist et al, 2009Wallquist et al, , 2010 We found support for Hypothesis 1, which predicted that responses to educational materials about CCS would be informed by prior feelings about CCS. Table 1 shows a significant correlation between post-education feelings about CCS and baseline feelings about CCS.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…As in Study 1, a one-sided t-test found that baseline feelings about CCS as reported across participants were slightly positive, with a one-sided t-test showing that the mean rating was significantly above the scale midpoint of 4 (M=4.51, SD=1.24), t(319)=7.31, p<.001, thus falling in the range of previous public perception studies, which have reported ratings that vary from slightly negative to slightly positive (Huijts et al, 2007;Palmgren et al, 2004;Shackley et al, 2005;Sharp et al, 2009;Wallquist et al, 2009Wallquist et al, , 2010. Because the baseline assessment occurred before participants received the one-sided argument, baseline feelings about CCS should show no significant difference between participants who were to receive the pro-CCS argument and those who were to receive the anti-CCS argument, as is indeed the case (Table 3).…”

Section: Initial Analysesmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…1 The 88 who self-rated their knowledge above the midpoint of 4 were enrolled into Study 1. The low number reflects the widespread lack of public CCS awareness (Huijts et al, 2007;Palmgren et al, 2004;Shackley et al, 2005;Sharp et al, 2009;Wallquist et al, 2009Wallquist et al, , 2010. The remaining individuals (n=483) were randomly assigned to Study 1 (n=163) RUNNING HEAD: Role of initial affective impressions in responses to communications 8 or Study 2 (n=320).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Opponents of CCS have voiced concerns about environmental damage, leaks, and small earthquakes (Huijts, Midden, & Meijnders, 2007; James, Richels, Blanford, & Gehl, 2007;Pacala & Socolow, 2004;Shackley et al, 2009). To date, public perception studies find that most people are unfamiliar with CCS, and that those who have heard of it are still relatively uninformed (Huijts et al 2007;Palmgren et al, 2004;Shackley, McLachlan, & Gough, 2005;Sharp, Jaccard, & Keith, 2009;Wallquist et al, 2009Wallquist et al, , 2010. Outreach activities to the general public remain largely non-existent (Ashworth et al, 2010; Shackley et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Study 1, we tested whether people's responses to educational materials about CCS were associated with prior impressions about CCS (Hypothesis 1), and whether that relationship was stronger in individuals with more perceived knowledge Additionally, we also explored potential mediators of the relationship between initial feelings (that were pre-existing in Study 1 or newly manipulated in Study 2) and post-education feelings, including interpretation of communication content, and ratings of trust and quality, as well as knowledge about communication content and confidence in that knowledge. These RUNNING HEAD: Role of initial affective impressions in responses to communications 7 measures were adapted from communication studies (Fischhoff et al, 2011;Lipkus, 2007) and play a role in responses to corrective advertising, advice taking (Gardner & Berry, 1995;Harvey & Fischer, 1997; Johar, 1996; Johar & Simmons, 2000;Yaniv, 2004;Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000) and public perceptions of CCS (Palmgren et al, 2004;Huijts et al, 2007; Walquist, Visschers, and Siegrist, 2010). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The role of initial affective impressions in responses to educational communications: The case of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Bruin¹,

Wong‐Parodi²

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emerging technologies promise potential benefits at a potential cost. Developers of educational communications aim to improve people's understanding and to facilitate public debate.However, even relatively uninformed recipients may have initial feelings that are difficult to change. We report that people's initial affective impressions about Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), a low-carbon coal-based electricity-generation technology with which most people are unfamiliar, influences how they interpret previously validated education materials. As a result, even individuals who had originally self-identified as uninformed persisted in their initial feelings after reading the educational communication --though perseverance of feelings about CCS was stronger among recipients who had originally self-identified as relatively informed (Study 1). Moreover, uninformed recipients whose initial feelings were experimentally manipulated by relatively uninformative pro-CCS or anti-CCS arguments persisted in their New technological developments bring the promise of societal benefits while introducing potential risks. Members of a democratic society face public debates about whether or not to support the implementation of specific technologies. Well-meaning educators may aim to facilitate those public debates by informing people's perceptions through educational communications. Here, we refer to "educational communications" when describing materials that have been designed to provide balanced and accurate information, and that have been tested for their ability to improve people's understanding of the topic under consideration (see for example Fischhoff, Brewer, & Downs, 2011;Morgan, Fischhoff, Bostrom, & Atman, 2002).Yet, it may be difficult to change recipients' feelings about CCS once they have already formed initial impressions, even if they may still have limited knowledge. First impressions are affective in nature, can be formed on the basis of little to no information, guide cognitions and perceptions of risks and benefits, and tend to be difficult to change (Finucane et al., 2000;Zajonc, 1980). Evidence for the perseverance of first impressions comes from three lines of psychological research in which undergraduate participants made hypothetical decisions in carefully controlled experiments. First, research on impression formation has shown a primacy effect, such that people described as intelligent, tall and mean are evaluated more positively than those described as mean, tall, and intelligent (Asch, 1961; for exceptions see Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992). Second, feelings that are evoked by positive or negative performance feedback tend to linger, even after it is disclosed that the feedback has been fabricated (Anderson et al., 1980). Third, psychological experiments have found that false impressions about hypothetical products RUNNING HEAD: Role of initial affective impressions in responses to communications 4 are difficult to change, because participants feel that the original claims are more likely to ring t...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Initial Analysesmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The role of initial affective impressions in responses to educational communications: The case of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Bruin¹,

Wong‐Parodi²

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Carbon Capture and Storage

Forbes¹,

Benson²,

Friedmann³

2010

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

is a leading geoscientist of his generation, venture capitalist, and a significant figure in the politics of Colorado. In this article he reviews some inconvenient truths about the timely implementation of CCS projects in the US, some of which may resonate in other countries seeking CO 2 reduction measures.T he greatest challenge to carbon capture and storage (CCS) is likely to be economic rather than technical. A September 2008 McKinsey report estimated that the first commercial scale CCS projects, potentially to be built soon after 2020, would cost €35-50 per metric ton of CO 2 abated. They assume that if 500+ projects were built by 2030, the cost might fall to €25-40 per ton. About two-thirds of that cost is for CO 2 capture.It is interesting to consider those costs on a global scale. A study by Pacala and Socolow implies that we need to cut a cumulative 25 Gton of CO 2 over the next 50 years just to cap the CO 2 concentration in the atmosphere at a modest 500 ppm (we are now at 390 ppm). If all of our solutions cost €25 per ton, the economic impact would be €625 billion ($833 billion) over the next 50 years.Reducing CO 2 is a global issue, but the US creates 20% of the problem. It also offers an interesting case study on the difficulty of finding practical solutions in a challenging political and economic environment. Hopefully along the way the reader will discover opportunities as well as pitfalls to avoid.According to the US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (DOE-EIA), 98% of America's human-generated CO 2 comes from energy use, with 40% of that from electricity (coal and natural gas) and 33% from transportation (mostly petroleum). Coal produces 45% of America's electricity and natural gas produces 23% (see Figure 1).McKinsey's study notes that 'Retrofitting of existing power plants is likely to be more expensive than new installations, and economically feasible only for relatively new plants (with high efficiencies).' But according to the DOE-EIA, over the past 20 years coal contributed only 3.7% of total added US capacity while natural gas accounted for 88%. Few modern, efficient US coal plants have been added in the past 20 years.'Efficiency' is a term used to define the conversion of the theoretical energy content of a fuel into electricity. The McKinsey report notes that the energy required for the CCS CO 2 capture process increases the amount of coal that must be burned per MW-hour delivered, and estimates a CCS 'efficiency penalty' of 10%. This means that if a future coal plant could be built to achieve a 50% thermal efficiency, CCS would decrease that efficiency to 40%. Such a plant would be burning 50/40=1.25 times as much coal per MW-hour. And burning 25% more coal would also increase harmful emissions since CCS captures only about 90% of CO 2 and none of the other pollutants.CCS also faces storage challenges, such as site selection, CO 2 transportation costs, pipeline and CCS site permits, and uncertainties in monitoring CO 2 sequestration. Leakage of just 0.5% per year w...

show abstract

Reducing the Linear Perception of Nonlinearity: Use of a Physical Representation

Dutt

González

2011

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research shows that while judging accumulations of quantities over time (e.g., money in a bank account or CO 2 in Earth's atmosphere), people assume that the shape of the accumulation is similar to the shape of the inflow (i.e., people rely on a correlation heuristic). Relying on the correlation heuristic is particularly worrisome for Earth's climate, as judging the CO 2 accumulation according to its emissions (inflow) would underestimate the actual (nonlinear) increase. This misperception undermines the seriousness of climate problem and results in wait-and-see behavior. We report two experiments where the effectiveness of a physical representation is compared with graphical and text representations in reducing people's underestimation of nonlinear accumulation in different contexts and problems. A physical representation presents an accumulation using a picture that works as a metaphor. In the first experiment, participants drew the shape of an accumulation over time relying on physical or graphical representations in one of two contexts: carbon dioxide and marbles. Although the participants underestimated the accumulation in both contexts, underestimations were reduced in the physical representation compared with the graphical representation. In the second experiment, we extended the evaluation of physical representations against both text and graphical representations in two different climate problems (with linearly increasing or decreasing inflow). Again, underestimations of the accumulation were reduced in the physical representation compared with the other two representations, regardless of the nature of the problem. We discuss implications of using the physical representation for improving people's estimates of nonlinear CO 2 accumulation.

show abstract

Initial Public Perceptions of Deep Geological and Oceanic Disposal of Carbon Dioxide

Cited by 150 publications

References 18 publications

The role of initial affective impressions in responses to educational communications: The case of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

The role of initial affective impressions in responses to educational communications: The case of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Carbon Capture and Storage

Reducing the Linear Perception of Nonlinearity: Use of a Physical Representation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About