Initial public reactions to carbon capture and storage (CCS): differentiating general and local views

Abstract

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered a potential climate change mitigation option, but public opposition may hamper its implementation. A quasi-experimental approach is used to examine whether 'not in my back yard' (NIMBY) sentiments can be anticipated at the initial stage when CO 2 storage locations have been selected and communicated to the public. Furthermore, the psychological structure of initial reactions to CO 2 storage plans is studied to ascertain the differences between people living in the direct vicinity of a proposed CO 2 storage location (i.e. onsite residents) and people who do not (i.e. offsite residents). The results indicate that initial reactions to local CCS plans are not necessarily dominated by NIMBY sentiments. For onsite residents as well as offsite residents, trust in government affects their judgements of the risks and benefits associated with CCS, which in turn affects their inclination to protest against CCS plans. Onsite residents' inclination to protest is affected by their perceptions of local safety risks, but this is less of a concern for offsite residents. The inclination to protest against CCS is unrelated to concern about climate change.Le captage et stockage de carbone (CSC) est considéré comme une option possible d'atténuation du changement climatique, mais l'opposition publique pourrait entraver sa mise en application. Une approche quasi-expérimentale est employée pour examiner si des sentiments de « pas dans ma cour » (« Not in my backyard -NIMBY ») pourraient être anticipés dans les stades initiaux, à l'étape de sélection des lieux de stockages de CO 2 et leur communication au public. Par ailleurs, la structure psychologique des premières réactions aux plans de stockage de CO 2 est étudiée de manière à déterminer la différence entre les personnes vivant à proximité des lieux de stockages proposés (c'est-à-dire résidents sur site) et les autres personnes ne vivant pas sur le site (c'est-à-dire résidents hors-site). Les résultats indiquent que les premières réactions aux projets CSC locaux ne sont pas nécessairement dominées par des sentiments « NIMBY ». L'opinion des résidents sur site comme pour les résidents hors-site sur les risques et bénéfices associés au CSC est influencée par leur confiance dans le gouvernement, qui à son tour influence ou non leur tendance à protester contre les projets de CSC. Les tendances protestataires des résidents sur site sont influencées par leur perception des risques de sécurité locale, mais ceux-ci constituent une moindre préoccupation pour les résidents hors-site. Les tendances protestataires au sujet du CSC ne sont pas liées aux préoccupations sur le changement climatique.Mots clés : Captage et stockage de carbone (CSC); mitigation du changement climatique; attitudes du public; confiance; « pas dans ma cour » (NIMBY); protestations; perceptions du risque

The Relation between Cultural Structures and Risk Perception: How does Social Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage Emerge?

“…NIMBY reactions (general support for CCS adoption but opposition to local projects) have been explained by individual values, namely the perception of the effects of CCS in society at large [14]. Trust in government has been shown to be a key factor in the inclination to protest, interacting with risk perception [13]. There are, then, estimates of some of the effects on non-CCS related values, opinions and beliefs on reactions to CCS.…”

“…Here, the reactions of local publics to storage projects have been under great scrutiny [11,12]. Not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY), or more accurately, not-under-my-backyard, effects have been differentiated from general reactions by measuring the reactions of offsite and onsite publics [13]. NIMBY reactions (general support for CCS adoption but opposition to local projects) have been explained by individual values, namely the perception of the effects of CCS in society at large [14].…”

Understanding First Nations rights and perspectives on the use of herbicides in forestry: A case study from northeastern Ontario

“…Trust in government, its institutions and regulatory framework (Terwel and Daamen 2012) is a particularly important factor in discussions about herbicide use. Due to the negative colonial legacy, there is a host of historical and current reasons why First Nations mistrust non-Aboriginal society, especially its governments and their agencies (Adams 1989, Cardinal 1999.…”

The development and deployment of low-carbon energy technologies: The role of economic interests and cultural worldviews on public support

“…Studies indicate that views on CCS vary across countries according to national energy issues, that the public prefers renewable energy sources to CCS, and that the public has limited expectations with regard to the future importance of CCS (Fleishman et al 2010;Kraeusel and Möst 2012;Oltra et al 2010;Pietzner et al 2011;Shackley and McLachlan 2006;Upham and Roberts 2011). In terms of local considerations, studies have found that compensation to local communities, risk and safety of people, and perceived community benefits are important to public perceptions (Bradbury et al 2009;Brunsting et al 2011;Terwel and Daamen 2012). 1 In addition, a survey of U.S. households was appropriate because the worldview measurement instrument was constructed for U.S. social, cultural and political conditions (Kahan et al, 2011). Wind energy is a more mature technology than CCS.…”

“…The effect of communication on public perceptions depends on early engagement and the level of confidence in the source of information, with industry and government inspiring less confidence and researcher and NGOs inspiring more confidence (Bradbury et al 2009;Brunsting et al 2011;Terwel and Daamen 2012;Upham and Roberts 2011). Studies indicate that views on CCS vary across countries according to national energy issues, that the public prefers renewable energy sources to CCS, and that the public has limited expectations with regard to the future importance of CCS (Fleishman et al 2010;Kraeusel and Möst 2012;Oltra et al 2010;Pietzner et al 2011;Shackley and McLachlan 2006;Upham and Roberts 2011).…”