Unwrapping the reasons for lack of public discussion around CCS - Presentation by Dr Carly Maynard (University of Edinburgh) at the UKCCSRC's CCS: Issues in governance and ethics workshop in Edinburgh, 23 September 2014

1. Unwrapping the reasons for lack of public discussion around CCS
UKCCSRC Governance and Ethics Workshop
23 September 2014
Carly Maynard
University of Edinburgh
Co-researchers: Simon Shackely, Leslie Mabon, David Rudolph

2. 25/09/2014 page 2
Public perceptions of CCS
•
The general public have limited awareness of CCS (exception: localities around CCS projects)
•
Lack of awareness can result in ambivalent perceptions or ‘pseudo-opinions’
•
Results in unstable opinions, easily swayed by contextual information Is this lack of awareness a reflection of the (un)popularity of CCS or does it mean that the public do not realise or appreciate the need for decarbonised energy production systems?
•
Despite ambivalence or lack of interest, CCS developers must continue to engage the public

3. What affects public perceptions of CCS?
25/09/2014 page 3
Context + Values
Context:
•
Previous exposure to industry
–
Industry in their area? Experiences with specific developers?
•
Tangible impacts of CCS
–
Affect how individuals feel: provision of jobs; building structures
•
Provision of information
–
Change to +ve with information; some exceptions; nature of information
•
Who conducts communication, and how
–
Better received from NGOs or academics than industries or businesses

4. What affects public perceptions of CCS?
25/09/2014 page 4
Values:
•
What does CCS development mean to an individual?
•
Decision-making tools – affected by values & environment = unique
•
Heuristics and framings:
–
Recognition heuristic
–
Satisficing heuristic
–
Performance frame
–
Financial risk frame
–
Carbon lock-in frame
–
Expertise and Uncertainty frames

5. Edinburgh Climate and Energy Citizen Panel
25/09/2014 page 5
•
ECO2 EU FP7 Project
•
Assessing the long and short term risks of sub-marine CO2 storage on the marine environment
Social research aims:
•
Assess public and stakeholder perceptions of low carbon options (e.g. CCS) to understand how people make sense of an issue when learning about low carbon solutions
•
Consider importance of: personal values, relationships with other stakeholders, characteristics of technology, position of CCS within the wider energy debate (CCS narrative was not implied by the facilitators)
•
Identify public views of low carbon options and CCS in relation to: politics, management, behaviour change, emissions targets, personal impacts
•
Determine how to address the concerns represented within the citizen panel

6. Edinburgh Climate and Energy Citizen Panel: Approach
25/09/2014 page 6
•
17 participants from Edinburgh area
•
Varied demographic in terms of age, profession, social-economic status
•
Participants came with little or no awareness of CCS and no strong agenda on climate change or energy
•
Six sessions of two hours
–
Exploring ‘life-world’ of participants
–
Presentations on climate change, mitigation options, CCS and low carbon infrastructure
–
Question and answer session with ex-civil servant of Scottish Government (climate change policy) and director for renewable energy projects at Scottish Power
–
Identification of key climate and CCS questions for the citizen panel and preparation of answers/solutions/extensions to these questions

7. Perspectives of citizen panel members
25/09/2014 page 7
The group members considered that CCS is likely to be beneficial in reducing carbon emissions but emphasised that due to the scale and nature of the process, it was unlikely to be a key priority for members of the public
•
When allowed to direct the conversation, the wider climate debate, governance and specific issues such as carbon emissions and recycling dominated over CCS
•
Participants started with limited awareness of CCS and following information provision, remained wary about discussing the topic
•
Renewable energy options were favoured over CCS
•
Concerns were expressed around the cost of CCS, the necessity for subsidies, and the extent of its true benefits to carbon emissions were questioned

8. Issues of governance
25/09/2014 page 8
•
The panel members noted that if the public is to support CCS, its benefits must be more clearly and prominently communicated
•
Efforts for carbon reduction were considered to be, firstly, the responsibility of the Government
•
The panel cited stronger, top-down, leadership from the Government as one of their key needs in addressing climate issues. – due to urgency of action towards climate change?
•
Despite their need for top-down governance, the group questioned the suitability of the government for this role, and suggested that climate experts would be more appropriate in advising and designing strategies

9. 25/09/2014 page 9
•
The citizen panel members suggest that they are willing to take some responsibility in mitigating carbon emissions and tackling climate change, but within the scope of the lives which they currently lead
•
CCS was positioned as one, distant and intangible aspect of climate mitigation by the citizen panel
•
Citing their own limitations in awareness and involvement with CCS, combined with the responsibility they expect the government to hold, they require the government to lead them
Distancing themselves from CCS

10. Why do people avoid discussing CCS?
25/09/2014 page 10
Who is responsible?
Who should decide?
What is my role in this?
Are the public unwilling to take responsibility for their carbon emissions? Delegating responsibility for dealing with expert knowledge – asking ‘why should we know?’ Delegating expertise – having opinions but not wanting to make a decision

11. Why the unwillingness to consider CCS?
•
Lack of understanding about the energy system and the maths of carbon reduction?
•
Implicit denial of the urgency of climate change = de-prioritisation of the importance of CCS?
•
Genuine belief that renewables and problems like intermittency can be over-come? i.e. take a v. positive perspective on renewables and our ability to implement them quickly
•
Something about the 'alien' nature of CCS means the idea becomes 'stigmatised' in a similar way to nuclear?
•
Delegation of responsibility: Lack of confidence in one’s own knowledge, or in a technology can lead individuals to defer judgement to those whom they believe possess appropriate knowledge 25/09/2014 page 11

12. 25/09/2014 page 12
The tendency of the citizen panel members to choose to focus on climate mitigation measures which are more accessible and understandable to them than CCS, has important implications for governance.
If we are to provide effective governance on CCS we must listen to the requirements of the public and offer leadership where it is needed, thus increasing access to a technology with which the public are currently reluctant to engage
Conclusion