Lay perceptions of Carbon Dioxide Utilisation technologies in the United Kingdom and Germany: An exploratory qualitative interview study

Abstract

Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (CDU) technologies convert Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into carbon-based products. CDU technologies are viewed as a means of helping to address climate change while creating commodities that can be sold to generate financial revenue. While technical research and development into CDU options is accelerating, at present there has been little research into public acceptance of the technology. The current study presents the findings of a series of 28 exploratory interviews conducted with lay people in the United Kingdom and Germany. The results show that awareness of CDU is currently very low in both countries but that there is tentative support for the concept. This support is, however, caveated by considerations of the techno-economic feasibility of the technology and the societal consequences that might result from investment. While the thematic content of discussions was similar in both countries, where appropriate any notable differences are outlined and discussed. In addition to providing fresh insight into the emerging nature of public perceptions and acceptance of CDU, it is reasoned that the findings of this research could help to benefit the design of communication materials intended to engage lay-publics in debate about the nature and purpose of CDU technologies

Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage

“…Consistent with this, framing CCS as dealing with 'waste' seems to be more persuasive in encouraging support than framing it in terms of climate or economic benefits (Jones et al, 2017a). The current study develops this finding to provide, for the first time, insights into representative public perceptions of carbon dioxide utilisation (CDU)-a technical process of recycling CO 2 to make new products (e.g., cement and plastics)-on support for the technology (Jones et al, 2017b).…”

“…Our results highlight in particular the benefits for CCS communication of affiliating the technology with CDU. This has been suggested in prior work (Jones et al, 2017a), and would appear to be particularly relevant to contexts where CCS is not outright rejected as a technology option (like in the UK). Previous research shows costs are a stumbling block to public support for CCS (Ashworth et al, Fig.…”

“…Second, as noted, framing is a potentially powerful tool for shaping audience perceptions (Chong and Druckman, 2007). This is likely to be the case particularly for issues like CCS and CDU where attitudes are not yet developed (due to low awareness) or are ambivalent, and therefore more malleable in the presence of new information (Jones et al, 2017a;Whitmarsh et al, 2015). As with other issues (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), targeting CCS information to audience values and situations is likely to be more effective than untargeted communication.…”

“…Similarly, when participants are exposed to the experimental component of the survey (information about CCS framed as either 'business as usual', with CDU, or with lifestyle change), we find the CDU-framed information leads to greater support for CCS implementation than either of the other two frames. Describing how CO 2 might be recycled to make new products (i.e., via CDU) may help persuade publics of the benefits of CCS (Jones et al, 2017a, b). Frame preference varies as a function of national and individual factors, however.…”

“…We explore the dynamic between CCS as a sufficient climate change mitigation strategy vs. the additional need for behaviour change, and the possible added value of CDU. Small-scale, deliberative research conducted in the UK and Germany suggests individuals express cautious support for CDU as a way of generating economic and possibly environmental benefits; while concerns include practical and technical issues, as well as more fundamental, moral worries that CDU (like CCS; Demski et al, 2013) represents a techno-fix solution or 'delaying tactic' that might prevent the required societal change to tackle climate change (Jones et al, 2017a, b). These moral concerns are particularly evident amongst those with strong environmental values.…”