Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

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 CCS?The current findings show that awareness of CCS was low amongst survey respondents, with overhalf (53%) indicating that they had not heard of 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 of knowledge about CCS. Awareness does seem tohave increased in recent years though, especially in the Netherlands, with 64% stating to have notheard about CCS 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% of respondents indicated that they had not heard of 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% of respondents that stated to have heard quitea bit about CCS, also indicated to have heard about the plans for implementation of a CCS projectin the town of Barendrecht. Combining this result with the fact that the Netherlands is the only ofthe three countries where there was such attention for the protest against a CCS demonstrationproject, it seems logical to conclude that the bigger increase in awareness observed in theNetherlands is caused by the attention for the CCS demonstration project in Barendrecht.One quarter of all respondents indicated they had heard of the technology but did not know what itwas, which highlights the gap between public awareness and actual knowledge of CCS.Respondents with higher awareness and self-reported knowledge of CCS had more pronouncedopinions about it, and tended to perceive it more positively as somewhat useful. In contrast, havingheard of CCS but having no knowledge of it did not lead to strong opinions. This is a similarfinding to that of 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 processesof engagement rather than by one-way provision of information (Ashworth et al., 2009a).Respondents held a number of misperceptions regarding the likelihood of CCS consequences andthe effects of CO 2 in CCS. In particular, respondents thought it likely that earthquakes would causeleakage of CO 2 , and believed CO 2 was stored in vacant underground chambers. After thetechnology was explained to respondents, CCS was generally perceived as positive, clean anduseful. However, many were uncertain about its safety and maturity. When awareness of CCS wascompared with perception of CCS, results showed that respondents had more established andstable views of CCS when they are better informed.8.2.1 WHAT INFLUENCES THESE CCS PERCEPTIONS?Several factors appeared to influence these initial impressions. One was the respondents’ statedwillingness to accept the risk that often accompanies new and emerging technologies; this had afavourable influence on perceptions of CCS as positive, safe, clean and useful. Concerns aboutthe risk of CCS on human health had the strongest negative impact on CCS impressions,demonstrating the importance of risk communications. Demographically, the older age ranges (50years and older) perceived CCS more favourably, and women perceived CCS less favourably.Impressions of CCS were negatively influenced by concerns over its health risks, while theperception that CCS is an effective climate change mitigation measure positively influenced overallimpressions of it. The percentage of the respondents who stated negative opinions seemed toUnderstanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide | 43