Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

7.1.2 KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF CCSAwareness of CCS varied across the three countries. Very few interviewees from Japan orAustralia had heard of it. Those interviewed in the Netherlands had greater awareness, with somereferring to the Barendrecht project 9 . The term “carbon capture and storage” was similarlyunfamiliar to members of the focus groups in Japan and Netherlands, but somewhat more familiarto Australian focus group members. Those who had never heard of CCS had varying mentalimages of the process; they imagined that CO 2 is stored in containers, or compared CCS tonuclear waste storage.Perceptions of CCS, measured after basic information on the technology (but not on CO 2 at thispoint in the survey) were presented, varied by country. Many respondents in Japan had afavourable attitude towards CCS, whereas the vast majority in Australia were negative towards it,and perceptions in the Netherlands were mixed. Respondents believed that CO 2 leakage wasinevitable and a high risk and that CCS is only a short term solution to reducing CO 2 emissions.Some also believed that CCS is limited by available storage capacity. Respondents with morefavourable perceptions recognised CCS as a feasible mitigation strategy and a developedtechnology.Respondents across all three countries tended not to support the planning of a CCS project neartheir homes. However, impressions of onshore and offshore storage varied. Respondents inAustralia tended to see offshore storage negatively owing to potential or perceived impacts on theocean. By contrast, Japanese survey respondents had more favourable impressions of offshorestorage owing to its perceived minor effect on humans. Across the interviews and focus groups,respondents in the Netherlands slightly favoured offshore rather than onshore storage.7.1.3 EFFECTS OF PROVIDING INFORMATIONInformation on where CO 2 naturally occurs and how it is used in commercial commoditiespromoted greater understanding of CO 2 among respondents, but did not drastically change theiropinion or perception of CO 2 and CCS. Respondents were surprised to learn how widely CO₂existed around them, both naturally and in commercial uses. They were particularly interested inthe natural phenomena of Lake Nyos, Mt Mammoth, and the Jackson, McElmo, and St. John’sDomes 10 . The former two examples caused concerns and reinforced perceived risks and dangersof CCS. There were mixed reactions to the example of the Jackson, McElmo and St John’sDomes. Some saw these as demonstrating that CO 2 could remain trapped for a long period oftime, whereas others commented that CCS, because it is carried out by people, is different to thenatural underground occurrence of CO 2 .Information regarding CO 2 ’s properties was particularly influential in changing people’s perceptionsof CO 2 and CCS. Perceptions became more positive as previous misperceptions regardingexplosiveness, flammability, and toxicity were dispelled. However, some respondents wereconfused by the fact that CO 2 was described as non-toxic, yet hazardous at certain concentrations.Also, respondents were interested to learn about the behaviour of CO 2 at different stages of CCS,and considered this information to be important. Descriptions of what could occur after CO 2 is9 Barendrecht was the first proposed onshore CCS project in the Netherlands, which was cancelled in February 2011 due to lack ofpublic support.10 In the USA, CO 2 fields called the Jackson, McElmo, and St. John’s Domes were formed millions of years ago, and together hold 2.4billion tons of CO 2. This exemplifies how CO 2 has been securely sealed underground in natural underground CO 2 reservoirs for millionsof years.18 | Understanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide