8 DiscussionThis international research project aimed to determine how individuals across Australia, theNetherlands, and Japan understand CO 2 ’s properties, and to examine the influence <strong>of</strong> thatknowledge on their perceptions <strong>of</strong> CO 2 and <strong>CCS</strong>. It additionally aimed to investigate how providinginformation about the underlying properties and characteristics <strong>of</strong> CO 2 influences individualattitudes towards <strong>CCS</strong>.8.1 How do people understand and perceive CO 2 ?Similar to previous findings (e.g. Itaoka et al., 2007; Paukovic et al., 2011; Wallquist, Visschers, etal., 2009; Whitmarsh, Seyfang, et al., 2011) the current research showed that CO 2 was moderatelyto poorly understood by many participants. Survey respondents were somewhat familiar with CO 2 ’sbasic properties (e.g. it occurs naturally, is contained in air, and is absorbed by plants); however,over 50% were uncertain whether CO 2 was soluble in water or degradable. Respondents weregenerally aware <strong>of</strong> CO 2 ’s sources but unsure <strong>of</strong> its uses, except for Australians, who were mostknowledgeable on the subject (a result that may be related to the over representation <strong>of</strong> highlyeducated survey panel participants.) Respondents were generally confused regarding CO 2 ’seffects, with many believing that it harms the ozone layer, particularly Japanese respondents. Alarge proportion was uncertain whether CO 2 affects humans in the same way as carbon monoxideand soot. Overall, initial perceptions <strong>of</strong> CO 2 were that it was slightly negative, dangerous, and dirty,but slightly useful, though most participants did not provide a definitive response.8.1.1 WHAT INFLUENCES THESE CO 2 PERCEPTIONS?A number <strong>of</strong> factors were found to influence initial impressions <strong>of</strong> CO 2 . Belief in global warmingand knowledge that CO 2 is emitted from natural gas or coal-fired power stations was related to anegative perception <strong>of</strong> CO 2 . Also, the prior belief that CO₂ has the same effects on human healthas air pollutants such as soot had the strongest influence on the perception <strong>of</strong> CO₂ as “dirty” and“dangerous.” <strong>Perceptions</strong> about CO 2 ’s usefulness were most strongly influenced by knowledgeabout its role in plant growth. Country <strong>of</strong> residence also played a role: Japanese and Dutchrespondents were more negative about CO 2 and perceived it as dirtier and less useful than didAustralian respondents. Respondents in Japan were found to perceive CO 2 as safer, compared tothose in Australia or the Netherlands. Dutch respondents had the most consistently unfavourableperceptions <strong>of</strong> CO 2 .8.1.2 ARE THERE INTERNATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN BROADER CLIAME CHANGE BELEIFS?The variation in CO 2 perceptions occurs against a backdrop <strong>of</strong> varied attitudes towards climatechange and energy topics. Belief in climate change and the need for immediate action to address itwas significantly higher in Japan than in Australia and the Netherlands. Respondents in theNetherlands were much less convinced or concerned about climate change and related issues,while Japanese respondents held a greater belief in climate change, were more concerned overthe depletion <strong>of</strong> fossil fuels, and had higher levels <strong>of</strong> support for urgent action and for renewableenergy use. Respondents in Australia were moderately concerned about climate change andmoderately supportive <strong>of</strong> action against climate change and <strong>of</strong> promoting renewables.42 | Understanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide
Respondents across all countries tended to agree that it is important to accept some risks relatedto a new technology, and that they were unwilling to pay more taxes to address climate change.8.2 How do people understand and perceive <strong>CCS</strong>?The current findings show that awareness <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong> was low amongst survey respondents, with overhalf (53%) indicating that they had not heard <strong>of</strong> the technology. These results are in accordancewith previous studies in Australia (Ashworth et al., 2009a), Japan (Itaoka et al,2009; Itaoka, Saito &Akai, 2005) and The Netherlands (de Best-Waldhober et al. 2009; de Coninck & Huijts, 2005)showing that the general public has low levels <strong>of</strong> knowledge about <strong>CCS</strong>. Awareness does seem tohave increased in recent years though, especially in the Netherlands, with 64% stating to have notheard about <strong>CCS</strong> in 2005, 43% in 2008 (de Best-Waldhober and Daamen, 2011) and 34% in thisstudy. This last result is similar to findings in a study done a few months earlier in the Netherlands,where 35% <strong>of</strong> respondents indicated that they had not heard <strong>of</strong> the technology (Paukovic et al,2011). This study provided a reasonable explanation for the recent rise in awareness in theNetherlands as well, with results showing that 95% <strong>of</strong> respondents that stated to have heard quitea bit about <strong>CCS</strong>, also indicated to have heard about the plans for implementation <strong>of</strong> a <strong>CCS</strong> projectin the town <strong>of</strong> Barendrecht. Combining this result with the fact that the Netherlands is the only <strong>of</strong>the three countries where there was such attention for the protest against a <strong>CCS</strong> demonstrationproject, it seems logical to conclude that the bigger increase in awareness observed in theNetherlands is caused by the attention for the <strong>CCS</strong> demonstration project in Barendrecht.One quarter <strong>of</strong> all respondents indicated they had heard <strong>of</strong> the technology but did not know what itwas, which highlights the gap between public awareness and actual knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong>.Respondents with higher awareness and self-reported knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong> had more pronouncedopinions about it, and tended to perceive it more positively as somewhat useful. In contrast, havingheard <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong> but having no knowledge <strong>of</strong> it did not lead to strong opinions. This is a similarfinding to that <strong>of</strong> existing risk communications research regarding opinions on unfamiliar topics, asdescribed by Ashworth and colleagues (2009). It may show that individuals with a less-formedopinion or less self-rated knowledge have the potential to be influenced, particularly by processes<strong>of</strong> engagement rather than by one-way provision <strong>of</strong> information (Ashworth et al., 2009a).Respondents held a number <strong>of</strong> misperceptions regarding the likelihood <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong> consequences andthe effects <strong>of</strong> CO 2 in <strong>CCS</strong>. In particular, respondents thought it likely that earthquakes would causeleakage <strong>of</strong> CO 2 , and believed CO 2 was stored in vacant underground chambers. After thetechnology was explained to respondents, <strong>CCS</strong> was generally perceived as positive, clean anduseful. However, many were uncertain about its safety and maturity. When awareness <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong> wascompared with perception <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong>, results showed that respondents had more established andstable views <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong> when they are better informed.8.2.1 WHAT INFLUENCES THESE <strong>CCS</strong> PERCEPTIONS?Several factors appeared to influence these initial impressions. One was the respondents’ statedwillingness to accept the risk that <strong>of</strong>ten accompanies new and emerging technologies; this had afavourable influence on perceptions <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong> as positive, safe, clean and useful. Concerns aboutthe risk <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong> on human health had the strongest negative impact on <strong>CCS</strong> impressions,demonstrating the importance <strong>of</strong> risk communications. Demographically, the older age ranges (50years and older) perceived <strong>CCS</strong> more favourably, and women perceived <strong>CCS</strong> less favourably.Impressions <strong>of</strong> <strong>CCS</strong> were negatively influenced by concerns over its health risks, while theperception that <strong>CCS</strong> is an effective climate change mitigation measure positively influenced overallimpressions <strong>of</strong> it. The percentage <strong>of</strong> the respondents who stated negative opinions seemed toUnderstanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide | 43