Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Communicating about CCS: tools and case studies
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Communicating about CCS: tools and case studies

641
views

Published on

Peta Ashworth, Group Leader of the Science into Society Group at the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) presented a Global CCS Institute webinar on public …

Peta Ashworth, Group Leader of the Science into Society Group at the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) presented a Global CCS Institute webinar on public awareness and acceptance of CCS.

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
641
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Communicating about CCSWebinar for Global CCS InstitutePeta Ashworth, Group Leader, Science into Society & Anne Maree Dowd, Senior Social Scientist16th August 2012CSIRO EARTH SCIENCE AND RESOURCE ENGINEERING
  • 2. Three years in 30 minutes!• Overview & Acknowledgements• Communicating for CCS Workshop, Paris 2009• International Comparison of Public Outreach• Social Site Characterisation• Evaluating Global CCS Communication Materials• Communicating the risks of CCS• How Australians Value Water• Understanding How Individuals Perceive CO2• Closing thoughts – informed decision makingCommunicating about CCS
  • 3. Acknowledgements•My team at CSIRO: Anne Maree Dowd, Talia Jeanneret, Shelley Rodriguez, AngelaColliver (Education)•Sarah Wade: Wade LLC, Washington, USA•Judith Bradbury, Gretchen Hund: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Battelle,USA•Sallie Greenberg: University of Illinois, USA•David Reiner, Olaf Corry: Cambridge University, England•Simon Shackley & team: University of Edinburgh, Scotland•Marjolein de best Waldhober & team: ECN, the Netherlands•Dancker Daamen, University of Leiden, the Netherlands•Kenshi Itaoka & team: Mizuho Research Institute, Japan•Edna Einsiedel & team, University of Calgary, CanadaCommunicating about CCS
  • 4. The projects1. Conference on Communication – Paris, November, 20092. International Comparison of Public Outreach Cases3. Synthesize Existing Materials  Database on communication activities  Evaluation of communication materials4. Social Site Characterisation5. Communicating Risk Assessments6. Extension to FENCO* work7. CCS Stakeholder Day – Tokyo, November, 20108. Understanding How Individuals Perceive CO2*FENCO = Fossil Energy Coalition NetworkCommunicating about CCS
  • 5. The Projects9. Conducting a Large Group Process in Canada, Netherlands & Scotland10. Identifying public perceptions to CCS using ICQ11. Understanding Sources of Opposition to CCS  Media Analysis  Attitudes of Environmental Activists to CCS12. CCS Education Materials13. CCS Flagship projects in Australia  Collie Hub – Large group process  DPI Victoria – Series of focus groups  Report on How Australian’s Value WaterCommunicating about CCS
  • 6. The Paris Workshop, November 2009In total 98 participants from 17 countries attended. Key themes:1. Setting CCS in the context of other energy options2. Importance of language used3. Tailoring for different audiences4. The importance of process and early involvement5. Multiple sources of information for increased credibilityCommunicating about CCS
  • 7. International Comparison of Public OutreachBest practice in communications and outreach alone are notsufficient to ensure successful CCS project deployment.A project’s ability to adjust its planning and management to itssocial context is more likely to ensure a positive outcome for allinvolved.Successful projects integrate communication and outreach as acritical component of the project from the beginning.Communicating about CCS
  • 8. International Comparison of Public Outreach1. To what extent are the key government (national, state, local) and project team members aligned?2. Can the project developer affect the situation and enhance coordination and a shared agenda?3. Are communication experts/staff included as an integral part of the project team from the outset of the project?4. To what extent are factors related to social context included in: – Selection of a specific site – Project design and implementation5. What degree of flexibility does the project developer have in framing and adjusting the implementation of the project?Communicating about CCS
  • 9. Communication and Engagement Toolkit• Synthesizing the findings from case studies to assist in the design and management of communciation and engagement activities around CCS projects worldwide• Universal guide for CCS implementors: – to use at different stages & in various ways – including methods & examples – practical and informative• Content: – Gathering social data – Stakeholder engagement – Communication plan
  • 10. Social Site Characterisation
  • 11. Conducting Social Site Characterization1. Stakeholder identification2. Data interpretation and use3. What are the information needs – If missing information will seek from those around them, particularly those with similar views or those they trust – Frequent misconceptions : understanding of scale, pressure effects, nature of storage space4. What are the concerns and perceptions? - Not always technical risks but broader social factors5. What are the best options for outreach and engagementCSIRO. Science into Society Group
  • 12. Evaluating Global CCS Communication Materials Communicating about CCS
  • 13. Some of the findings:•Focus is still on CCS and how it works, rather than how it might bemade to work•Transport is the invisible technology•There is a heavy reliance on climate change as the sole rationale forjustifying CCS•A large majority of CCS materials is overtly positive•The internet and English language remains the main focus for CCScommunication•There is a lack of publicly available CCS education materials•The one size fits all approach limits the usefulness to many groupsCSIRO. Science into Society Group
  • 14. Communicating the risks of CCS
  • 15. Pertinent project characteristics:Historic and economic ties Major employer, well paid jobs, support to local economy and tax base Communicating with company employees Project hosts present and active in the community well before CCS project was initiatedEmphasis on community relations Significant experience communicating and working with local stakeholders with dedicated community relations staffContext Need for fossil fuels and potential benefits of CCS not in dispute Less on climate change but recognition that regulatory constraints on CO2 could affect business and local economy in the futureStructure of the project team Engagement led by host companyCSIRO. Science into Society Group
  • 16. Key Findings1. Recognise the risks to the projects are likely broader than just the technical risks and commit up front to a comprehensive plan to address them.2. Be open respectful and responsive to the public.3. Be proactive in the sense of planning ahead about issues that could potentially arise.4. Prepare for media interactions.5. Use appropriate visual aids and analogies to help communicate concepts to the public and keep them simple.Communicating about CCS
  • 17. How Australians Value WaterPeople perceive diverse values in water:• economic and practical•ecological•aesthetic and recreational•religious in nature Protesters who gathered in Griffith at a forum over the water plans. Photo: Kate Geraghty Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate- change/the-lie-of-the-land-20101025- 170xc.html#ixzz1uHMsjU8YCommunicating about CCS
  • 18. How Australians Value WaterThese values are impacted by various demographic categories andinterpersonal differences. For example:•Professional identity•Residential location•Cultural and religious heritage•Risk perception•Environmental and ecological valuesCommunicating about CCS
  • 19. How Australians Value WaterRecommendations:1. Continue to inform and monitor arguments being made about impacts on water by CCS and other similar industries (UCG, CSG)2. Understand the priority local communities place on water and how and what they may be willing to trade off between such priorities3. Ensure technical conversations about water at the local level acknowledge the various values individuals place on water4. Engage in a conversation regarding risk and benefit that encompasses a broader scope of concerns than the technical likelihood or improbability of danger to aquifers due to of CO2 leakage.Communicating about CCS
  • 20. Understanding how individuals perceive CO2Rationale1. Climate change and technologies, such as CCS, make reference to carbon dioxide (CO2)2. General public’s knowledge and understanding of CO2 properties influences how they engage with carbon emitting industries and technologies3. There has been little research that has investigated public perceptions, knowledge and understanding of CO2Communicating about CCS
  • 21. Understanding how individuals perceive CO2Key Aims1. Explore the public’s knowledge and understanding of the properties of CO22.Examine the influence of that knowledge on their perceptions of CO2 and CCS3.Investigate how information provision about the underlying properties and characteristics of CO2 influences individual attitudes towards CCS4.Identify if any differences between countries exist in relation to values and beliefs, knowledge of CO2’s properties, and CCS perceptions.Communicating about CCS
  • 22. CO2 Properties
  • 23. CO2 Sources
  • 24. CO2 Uses
  • 25. CO2 Effects
  • 26. Effects of information provisionTwo analysis (ANOVA and Regression analysis) areconducted to investigate factors related to the changeof opinionsDependent variables Changes (differences) of opinions of three different types of CCS (CCS implementation in their country, their neighbourhood (onshore) and in the seabed under the nearest sea (offshore) ) between first and second assessmentIndependent variables Information packages (ANOVA) Importance measurements of the pieces of information (Regression analyses) 27
  • 27. Effects of Information provision1. Provided information packages describing CO2’s characteristics (A) Positive influence on opinions of all types of CCS implementations, especially information on CO2’s properties and sources2. Provided information packages describing natural phenomenaincluding CO2 (B) Negative influence on opinions of all types of CCS implementations, especially information on Mt. Mammoth and on the paint factory accident ; however, positive effects of information on hot springs on opinions3. Provided information packages describing CO2’s behaviour duringCCS (C) Negative influence on attitudes toward CCS implementation in any location except for offshore CCS. Particularly strong negative influence of information regarding microearthquakes and the possibility of CO2 leakage through cracks in caprock, while information regarding existing CO2 transportation activity provided positive effects.Communicating about CCS
  • 28. Recommendations1. Effort to promote dialogue and understanding of CCS should include information on CO2’s properties and chemistry2. Topics deemed important by respondents should be addressed by communicators3. Care should be taken in describing: – CO2 natural phenomena – Behaviour of CO2in the CCS process4. Many members of the public still require basic information on climate change, CCS, and their relationship to CO2 emissions.5. Additional CCS education and outreach campaigns should be planned through less-formal mechanisms.Communicating about CCS
  • 29. Informed decision makingRequires understanding the values, objectives, and concerns ofaffected parties(stakeholders).1. Most people are unsure about how they feel about proposed alternatives2. Minimal understanding of broader context in which decisions must be made;3. Unclear about how their values will be affected;4. Prone to judgmental biases;5. Ill-equipped (or unwilling) to address the required tradeoffs. Source: Joe Arvai, University of CalgaryCommunicating about CCS
  • 30. QuestionsYou can submit questionsto us simply by typingyour question directly intothe GoToWebinar controlPanel. 3

×