Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

change. Knowledge of both the properties of CO 2 and its uses had varying results in terms of theirinfluence on CCS implementation option perceptions. Knowledge that air contains CO 2 wasnegatively correlated with support for implementation in one’s neighbourhood; while knowledge ofthe use of CO 2 in fizzy drinks was positively related to all implementation options.It is also interesting to note that respondents who indicated that they had an awareness of CCS,but limited knowledge of it, were more favourable to the implementation options offered comparedto those who had either low or high levels of knowledge about CCS. Perceiving CCS as risky had asubstantial negative impact, and perceiving CCS as a necessary climate change mitigationstrategy had a substantial positive impact. This conforms with the existing research (Itaoka, Saito,& Akai, 2004) suggesting that levels of awareness of both the risk associated with CCS and itspotential benefits largely explain peoples’ level of acceptance of CCS technology andimplementation.8.3 How do CO 2 knowledge and perceptions relate to CCS knowledgeand perceptions?Research results strongly suggest that the key factor affecting misperceptions of CCS wasmisperceptions about CO 2 : almost all misperceptions about CO 2 were correlated to misperceptionsabout CCS. It was found that respondents’ level of misunderstanding of CO 2 was related to howrisky they perceived CCS to be. Therefore, a person’s level of accurate understanding of CO 2characteristics directly influences his or her understanding of CCS as a technology. As would thenbe expected, provision of information about CO 2 properties was positively correlated to therespondents’ displaying a more correct understanding of CCS (see section 5.3.1 for additionaldiscussion of the influence of information).As with knowledge, impressions of CO 2 were reflected in overall impressions of CCS. For example,respondents who saw CO 2 as useful strongly tended to perceive CCS as also more useful.Perceiving CO 2 as useful and dangerous led to the belief that CCS was also useful and dangerous.In fact, perceiving CO 2 as dangerous was one of the strongest predictors of perceiving CCS asdangerous. Knowledge of where CO 2 comes from influenced perceptions of whether CCS was auseful and mature technology. As may have been expected, the belief that CO 2 is related toclimate change resulted in perceptions of CCS as more useful.Interestingly, after respondents received a short introduction to CCS, their perceptions of thetechnology also played a role in determining their perceptions of CO 2 —an effect in the reversedirection from the main focus of this paper. For example, those who received information aboutCO 2 ’s behaviour during CCS perceived the gas as less useful, but not more dangerous. This isinteresting from the perspective of communicating about CO 2 and CCS because it shows that CCScommunication efforts may affect public opinion towards CO 2 , as well as vice versa.8.3.1 WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF PROVIDING INFORMATION?Effects on CO 2 perceptionsAfter receiving information packages on CCS, participants gave a similar pattern of responses onhow they perceived CO 2 , but more participants had formed an opinion either towards a morepositive or a more negative opinion. The information packages had relatively straightforwardinfluences. Respondents who received information about the characteristics and effects of CO 2became generally more positive about the gas, tending to report seeing it as more useful, clean,and safe. The analysis provided some surprising outcomes as well. Those respondents whoUnderstanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide | 45