Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

eceived information about natural phenomena involving CO 2 (e.g., the Lake Nyos incident)perceived CO 2 as more dangerous, but did not report that they had a more negative impression ofit. Essentially, respondents who had no specific opinions on CCS initially moved towards a morepositive or negative opinion depending on the information provided. This highlights the importanceof receiving reliable and balanced information in order to be able to form an opinion. It also meansthat people do not automatically become more positive about the technology if they know moreabout it or understand it better, but their opinions become more informed and more stable.Effects on CCS perceptionsMost respondents maintained the same opinion of CCS after the provision of information about it.Those who did change their opinions tended to perceive CCS as less positive, less clean, and lesssafe. Despite the fact that misperceptions of CCS relate to misperceptions of CO 2 , little changeoccurred in CCS perceptions when respondents were provided with information about CO₂’scharacteristics, natural phenomena relating to CO₂, CO₂ behaviour during CCS, or several of thesepieces of information. Three slight changes did occur:• Information on CO₂ characteristics (i.e., properties and chemistry) increased the perception ofCCS as a mature technology.• Perceptions of safety were damaged by information on CO 2 natural phenomena, particularly MtMammoth.• Information about the behaviour of CO 2 in CCS (particularly about induced seismicity)negatively influenced impressions of CCS as positive, clean (particularly related to the smallchance of CO 2 leakage), and safe (particularly related to topsoil acidification risk).In instances where changes in perceptions did occur, the type of knowledge presented led todifferent effects. For example, perceptions of CCS as ‘positive’, ‘clean’, ‘useful’ and ‘dangerous’were affected negatively and significantly by the provision of all sets of information. As anotherexample, informing participants of CO 2 ’s behaviour during CCS had mixed effects on perceptions(e.g., transport was viewed more positively, but earthquake risks were viewed more negatively);these effects may have cancelled each other out. This pattern demonstrates the importance ofconveying complete and correct information on CO 2 ’s characteristics, as greater understandingcould mitigate issues that may arise when respondents receive incomplete information about CCS,such as by means of a single negative anecdote.Effects on attitudes towards implementationThe majority of respondents did not change their opinions on CCS implementation between thefirst and second assessment. The influence of respondents’ demographics was also somewhatconsistent between the two assessments. Respondents who had not changed their opinions werefound to have greater pre-existing knowledge of CO 2 ’s properties and characteristics; as such, theymay have tended to form their opinions based on their own knowledge and experience rather thanthe information that was provided to them as part of the survey. Respondents’ perceptionsregarding the risks and necessity of CCS were found to have the greatest influence on overallopinions on CCS implementation: the perception that CCS entailed too many risks to human healthhad a negative effect, while the belief that CCS is essential to mitigate climate change positivelyinfluenced opinions on CCS implementation.In general, the effects of information provision on respondent opinions of CCS implementationwere weak but consistent. It was noted that there was high collinearity among the covariatesbetween the pieces of information in package B (i.e., regarding Lake Nyos, Japanese hot springs,the paint factory incident, Mt. Mammoth, and natural CO 2 storage domes) and package C (i.e.,46 | Understanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide