Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

eflect how close the potential CCS implementation sites seemed to be, as had appeared duringthe discussion in the focus groups.In accordance with findings of Terwel and colleagues (2009) and Tokushige (2007) the strongestcorrelation to all CCS perceptions lay in how respondents rated the credibility of informationsources. Which information sources participants trusted was correlated with their perceptions ofCCS and its implementation options. Trust in public sector organisations such as localgovernments and UN agencies, as well as in national newspapers, and scientists, had a positivecorrelation with an accurate understanding of CCS. Trust in national NGOs, local NGOs, friends,and websites was negatively correlated with accurate understandings of CCS. This suggests thatmembers of the public with a poorer understanding of CCS are less likely to trust public sector andscientific sources—highlighting the need to find less formal mechanisms for outreach. The positiveeffect of the credibility of experts’ knowledge demonstrates that it is important for respondents tobe able to perceive information sources such as ‘developers’ or ‘scientists’ as knowledgeable andcompetent.Furthermore, and again echoing Ashworth and colleagues (2009a), opinions were more stablewhere respondents were better informed. Respondents who had indicated higher levels ofawareness and knowledge of CCS were more certain of their opinion in either the favourable orunfavourable direction. Respondents with lower levels of awareness and self-rated knowledgewere more uncertain and tended to be slightly favourable towards CCS.Comprehension of CCS’s role as a global warming mitigation strategy exerted one of the strongestinfluences on the CCS impressions ‘positive’, ‘clean’ and ‘useful.’ This suggests that receivingmore background information about CCS and its potential role as a climate change mitigationtechnology assists in forming favourable opinions about it.More broadly, previous research has shown that providing information that is considered neutralregarding CCS may in fact lead to a decreased preference or support for CCS implementation(Itaoka et al., 2009). This calls into focus the need to consider other ways to present information,such as processes of small-group engagement (Ashworth et al., 2009b), and other dimensions ofcommunication, such as trust in the information source (Ashworth, et al., 2009a).8.2.2 WHAT INFLUENCES ACCEPTANCE OF CCS IMPLEMENTATION?Regarding the implementation of CCS in their country, in their neighbourhood, and offshore in thenearest ocean, many respondents (around 40%) had neutral opinions once they had viewed thebasic CCS information and diagram. Respondents were generally more favourable to offshorestorage than onshore, although Japanese survey respondents were less favourable towardsoffshore storage compared to respondents in Australia and the Netherlands.An understanding of the basic cause and effect of climate change was found to positively influencefavourable opinion on the implementation of CCS in the respondents’ country and offshore, but noton implementation in the respondent’s neighbourhood. Understanding the relationship betweenCO 2 and climate change was positively correlated to support for the ‘in my country’ and ‘offshore’implementation options, but not the ‘in my neighbourhood’ option. In the case of this ‘onshore’option, the influence of a basic cause-effect understanding of CO 2 and climate change seems to bereduced by perceptions that CCS is dangerous.Analysis could not fully explain initial opinions regarding CCS implementation; however, keyinfluencing factors included respondents’ values and beliefs, a person’s tendency to accepttechnology-related risk, and their level of support for the use of increased taxes to address climate44 | Understanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide