Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
egarding the behaviour of CO 2 in CCS). The Mt Mammoth effects stood out particularly; however,the paint factory accident information and the Lake Nyos information led to more or less the sameeffects. Information on induced seismicity due to CCS was also seen as important. The informationon CO 2 ’s behaviour in capture and transport provided a positive effect on CCS implementationperceptions, and information on the possibility of CO 2 leakage via cracks had a negative influence.Generally, as knowledge about CO 2 increased, the tendency towards definitive/ pronounced (i.e.non-neutral) opinions about CCS implementation also increased, although in terms of opinionsabout CCS ‘offshore’, the tendency was weak. This may imply that it is harder to form opinionsabout CCS ‘offshore’ compared with CCS ‘in your country’ or ‘in your neighbourhood’ through theinformation about CCS that was provided in this research. It may be that respondents asked toprovide an opinion about offshore implementation feel they are being asked to speak aboutsomething that is not meaningful to them at the moment. However, it is understandable that it mayhave been difficult for respondents to change opinions substantially by learning through informationprovision in such a short space of time as occurred in the survey, regardless of the content of theinformation provided.8.4 SummaryIn summary, respondents were found to have reasonable general knowledge of CO 2 but poorknowledge of some of its scientific dimensions such as flammability and health effects, giving themthe opportunity to misunderstand and perceive it incorrectly. Their misperceptions of CO 2 weredirectly related to their misperceptions of CCS, yet only indirectly related to their opinion on CCSimplementation. Influences of information provision were statistically significant but weak. Due tothe survey’s large sample size, these influences could be distinguished; they break down amongthe general information categories as follows: information on CO 2 natural phenomena and CO 2behaviour in CCS had a negative effect, while information on CO 2 characteristics (specificallyproperties and chemistry) had a favourable effect on CCS perceptions and often mitigated thenegative effects of the other information. The next chapter comments on how to act on thesefindings.Understanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide | 47
Page 2 and 3:
Enquiries should be addressed to:Dr
Page 4 and 5:
Part V Conclusion and Recommendatio
Page 6 and 7: TablesTable 1: Combination of infor
Page 8 and 9: Executive summaryCarbon dioxide cap
Page 10 and 11: Recommendations derived from this w
Page 12 and 13: 1 IntroductionClimate change has of
Page 14 and 15: 2.2 Perceptions of CO 2Very little
Page 16 and 17: • perceptions about the nature an
Page 18 and 19: 3 OverviewThis research project’s
Page 20 and 21: 5 Internet surveyFindings from the
Page 22 and 23: Respondents were provided with eith
Page 24 and 25: 6 Administration of the survey6.1 T
Page 26 and 27: Part III Results16 | Understanding
Page 28 and 29: 7.1.2 KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF
Page 30 and 31: 7.2 Quantitative resultsThe followi
Page 32 and 33: PropertiesKnowledge about CO 2 ’s
Page 34 and 35: UsesRespondents were asked about th
Page 36 and 37: 7.2.3 PERCEPTIONS OF CO 2First asse
Page 38 and 39: 7.2.4 AWARENESS AND PERCEPTIONS OF
Page 40 and 41: First assessmentError! Reference so
Page 42 and 43: Second assessmentPerceptions were a
Page 44 and 45: formed their opinion using the CCS
Page 46 and 47: Table 18, Appendix F. Furthermore,
Page 48 and 49: DF DF DFInfoACO 2characteristicsInf
Page 50 and 51: Table 20 in Appendix F shows the re
Page 52 and 53: 8 DiscussionThis international rese
Page 54 and 55: eflect how close the potential CCS
Page 58 and 59: Part V Conclusion andRecommendation
Page 60 and 61: 9.2 Recommendations9.2.1 NEED FOR E
Page 62 and 63: Part VI Appendices andReferences52
Page 64 and 65: Q: How did your images and understa
Page 66 and 67: Q: What kind of information about C
Page 68 and 69: Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9AQuestion statementsHere
Page 70 and 71: BCQuestion statementsPlease read th
Page 72 and 73: Q13Q14Q15Question statementsNext yo
Page 74 and 75: Appendix D Participant Demographics
Page 76 and 77: Appendix E Selected Qualitative Res
Page 78 and 79: • “Water is such a precious thi
Page 80 and 81: Univ_dmy - - - - -Female_dmy - - -
Page 82 and 83: The table above shows the compariso
Page 84 and 85: Set B: CCS impressionTable 12: Regr
Page 86 and 87: •Extra CO 2 is put in the air in
Page 88 and 89: a50s_dmyO60s_dmyCsea_dmyAdjusted R-
Page 90 and 91: ionCCSawarenessCO 2Clean1CO 2Useful
Page 92 and 93: Table 14: ANOVA (three factors) for
Page 94 and 95: Table 16: Regression analysis on in
Page 96 and 97: CO 2relatedactivityInformationgathe
Page 98 and 99: CO 2 relatedactivityInformationgath
Page 100 and 101: Table 18: ANOVA (four factors) for
Page 102 and 103: Table 20: Regression analysis on in
Page 104 and 105: gathering topics Environment - - -0
Page 106 and 107:
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research de
Page 108:
Shackley, S., Gough, C., & McLachla
show all

Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?