Ambivalence, naturalness and normality in public perceptions of carbon capture and storage in biomass, fossil energy, and industrial applications in the United Kingdom

Thomas, Gareth; Pidgeon, Nick; Roberts, Erin

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.007

Cited by 73 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the high-involvement end, a sizable literature continued to explore the benefits, limitations, and challenges of "upstream" engagement in the scientific and technological development process (Pidgeon, 2020). Studies capitalized on contemporary emerging technologies like climate engineering (e.g., Bellamy, Chilvers, Vaughan, & Lenton, 2013), future energy systems change (e.g., Demski, Spence, & Pidgeon, 2017), carbon capture and storage (CCS) (e.g., Thomas, Pidgeon, & Roberts, 2018), and unconventional oil and gas development (e.g., North, Stern, Webler, & Field, 2014). In the nanotechnology context, Pidgeon et al (2017) found that, inter alia: (1) members of the general public are perfectly capable of debating complex issues when they are given sufficient resources, time, and support; (2) valuable benefit-risk perception knowledge can be obtained before social controversies occur; and (3) projected resistances ultimately depend on the way different types of nanotechnology are used.…”

Section: Audiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolving Field of Risk Communication

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 40th Anniversary of the Society for Risk Analysis presents an apt time to step back and review the field of risk communication. In this review, we first evaluate recent debates over the field's current state and future directions. Our takeaway is that efforts to settle on a single, generic version of what constitutes risk communication will be less productive than an openminded exploration of the multiple forms that comprise today's vibrant interdisciplinary field. We then review a selection of prominent cognitive, cultural, and social risk communication scholarship appearing in the published literature since 2010. Studies on trust in risk communication messengers continued to figure prominently, while new research directions emerged on the opportunities and critical challenges of enhancing transparency and using social media. Research on message attributes explored how conceptual insights particularly relating to framing, affective and emotional responses, and uncertainty might be operationalized to improve message effectiveness. Studies consistently demonstrated the importance of evaluation and how varying single attributes alone is unlikely to achieve desired results. Research on risk communication audiences advanced on risk perception and multiway engagement with notable interest in personal factors such as gender, race, age, and political orientation. We conclude by arguing that the field's interdisciplinary tradition should be further nurtured to drive the next evolutionary phase of risk communication research.

show abstract

Section: Audiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolving Field of Risk Communication

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whilst research into BECCS is in its infancy and there is limited deployment of the technology, research into CCS highlights the influence of geographical context on the social responses. CCS studies have explored responses in countries where there are already operational CCS projects e.g., Canada [26] and Norway [27], where there is policy interest in CCS e.g., the UK [18,22,[28][29][30], the wider Nordic region [21], and New Zealand [31], and where there has been opposition to CCS projects e.g., The Netherlands [32] and Germany [9,19,33,34]. These studies emphasise the importance of understanding the specific social context for deployment as a dynamic interaction of people, places, and events which drive public perceptions.…”

Section: Geographical Contexts and Place-based Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Gough¹,

Mander²

2019

Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review This paper assesses social science research relating to BECCS and considers the applicability of research on CCS to BECCS. Recent Findings In recent years, social science research on CCS and BECCS has gone beyond an evaluation of public acceptance to provide a more nuanced analysis of the wider social political, ethical, and governance contexts in which large-scale deployment might be achieved. This raises issues at global, local, and regional scales, requiring a wide array of methods and approaches. Summary Awareness of the scale and urgency needed to act on climate change is growing and the role of BECCS in delivering carbon dioxide removal forms a central argument for the use of this family of technologies. Here, framing becomes a critical factor in how society responds to BECCS technologies and we argue that making the case for BECCS as a means of extending mitigation to make a 'net zero' goal achievable could be the key to its acceptable and sustainable deployment. Keywords CCS. BECCS. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Negative emissions. Social responses. Acceptability This article is part of the Topical Collection on Deep Decarbonization: BECCS

show abstract

“…Trust in institutional procedures emerges as an important factor in more sophisticated understandings of “public perception,” in which social license or socio‐political legitimacy is viewed in dynamic terms (Gough, Cunningham, & Mander, 2018; Mabon, Shackley, Blackford, Stahl, & Miller, 2015). Perceived “naturalness” of BECCS technologies is found to increase public acceptability (Thomas, Pidgeon, & Roberts, 2018). Gamborg, Anker, and Sandøe (2014) highlight the importance of managing value disagreements and governance implications relating to bioenergy production.…”

Section: What Are the Socio‐political Dimensions Of Beccs And Ar?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Almost all studies of BECCS in our corpus exhibit concerns for social and political acceptability, ranging from reflexive GGR assessments (McLaren, 2012a, 2012b) 12 to bioenergy policy analysis (Dale et al, 2013; Magar, Pelkonen, Tahvanainen, Toivonen, & Toppinen, 2011) to studies of CCS perceptions (Dowd et al, 2015; L'Orange Seigo et al, 2014). A variety of studies highlight the gap between scientific research on BECCS and awareness and understanding among policy‐makers and stakeholder groups (Fridahl, 2017; Lock, Smallman, Lee, & Rydin, 2014; Thomas et al, 2018). The relative nascent stage of BECCS development means that public demonstration projects are likely to play a central role in future innovation process (Kemper, 2015; Markusson et al, 2017; Nemet et al, 2018) and therefore public responses to BECCS are widely acknowledged as important in shaping, and in other ways constraining, the trajectory of technology development and its relation to incumbent fossil‐energy infrastructure (Vergragt, Markusson, & Karlsson, 2011).…”

Section: Three Framings Of Ggr and Its Feasibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions

Waller

Rayner

Chilvers

et al. 2020

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prospective approaches for large‐scale greenhouse gas removal (GGR) are now central to the post‐2020 international commitment to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. However, the feasibility of large‐scale GGR has been repeatedly questioned. Most systematic analyses focus only on the physical, technical, and economic challenges of deploying it at scale. However, social and political dimensions will be just as important, if not more so, to how possible futures play out. We conduct one of the first reviews of the international peer‐reviewed literature pertaining to the social and political dimensions of large‐scale GGR, with a specific focus on two predominant approaches: Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation (AR). Our analysis of 78 studies proposes two important insights. First, it shows how six key social and political dimensions of GGR feasibility–namely economics and incentives; innovation; societal engagement; governance; complexity and uncertainty; and ethics, equity, and justice–are identifiable and are emphasized to varying degrees in the literature. Second, there are three contested ways in which BECCS and AR and their feasibility are being framed in the literature: (a) a techno‐economic framing; (b) a social and political acceptability framing; and (c) a responsible development framing. We suggest this third frame will, and indeed should, become increasingly pertinent to the assessment, innovation, and governance of climate futures. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior.

show abstract

Ambivalence, naturalness and normality in public perceptions of carbon capture and storage in biomass, fossil energy, and industrial applications in the United Kingdom

Cited by 73 publications

References 52 publications

The Evolving Field of Risk Communication

The Evolving Field of Risk Communication

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About