public perceptions of ccs: a focus on the sub-national level jennie c. stephens assistant professor...
TRANSCRIPT
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