Innovations' acceptance for reducing global warming
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Innovations' acceptance for reducing global warming

on

  • 998 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
998
Views on SlideShare
998
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Innovations' acceptance for reducing global warming Innovations' acceptance for reducing global warming Presentation Transcript

  • Diana-Maria Cismaru, Associate Professor, PhD, NUPSPA Bucharest
  • Fenco ERA-NET Research “Scrutinizing the impact of CCS communication on the general and local public” The CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies are designed to decrease the level of industrial CO2 emissions, having an important effect in decreasing global warming. The project tested the public acceptance of CCS technologies in six European countries (Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, Greece and Romania). Some of the countries (as Germany and Netherlands) were advanced in the development of the new technologies, while others were at a beginning.
  • Methods A. The qualitative research: Focus groups versus ICQ groups (3 groups with 12 participants each, matched groups); Objective: to compare means for shaping a stable opinion and for disseminating information to publics B.The quantitative research : Representative survey at a national level Objective: to identify the best channels of information and the availability to accept innovation in the field of reducing global warming
  • The focus groups and ICQ groups results for Romania When comparing the effectiveness of the two methods of communication, oral presentation of an expert followed by group debate was in advantage for Romanians. The self-reported awareness to form an opinion on technologies was slightly better in focus groups. Participants reported fewer difficulties in forming an opinion, a greater certainty and sufficient information.
  • Representative survey results in Romania (I) The poll at the national level showed a fine level of information about pollution and global warming effect, but almost no information on capture carbon and storage technologies at a majority of the Romanians (75% never heard about carbon capture and storage, only 2,9% had more information)
  • Representative survey results in Romania (II): the hierarchy of problems
  • Preferences for different types of energy solar wind water plants biomass coal gas nuclear 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
  • The influence of source testing Four scenarios tested about CCS: Negative with a source (Greenpeace); Negative without a source; Positive with a source (Shell); Positive without a source.
  • Change in acceptance when introducing source and negative/positive message
  • Comparison with the other five countries Level of information on CCS: lower than Norway and Netherlands, higher than Greece, comparable with United Kingdom; Level of acceptance of CCS: UK, Norway and Netherlands are neutral, Germany are sceptical, Romania and Greece are enthusiastic; Romania’s particular reaction: a positive change in attitude even in the case of a negative presentation (with or without a source); (explanation: the low level of social trust).
  • Conclusions • The best method for introducing industrial innovation would probably be public events, followed by expert presentations; • The large acceptance of innovations without information shows a lack of maturity in Romanian publics ; • In promoting innovation, the most important factor in creating public acceptance is not the importance and credibility of the source, but the accessibility of the information .