Public Perceptions of CCS: A Focus on the Sub-National Level Jennie C. Stephens Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy (ES&P) Department of International Development, Community and Environment (IDCE) Associate, Energy Technology Innovation Policy Group Harvard Kennedy School November 15, 2010

Levels of Public Perception Local/regional level – Communities facing actual CCS projects General macro level – More abstract perceptions of CCS technology’s risks and benefits

Research & Development R&D Demonstration Deployment Technology Innovation Systems Government Non-governmental actors Other social factors

Jennie C. Stephens Non-Governmental Actors Influencing CCS Development Fossil fuel industry Oil and gas, coal Environmental community Scientific community Communities facing proposed projects

Perceptions of climate-mitigation-technology readiness linked to timeframe Existing technologies Need implementation strategies Near-term bridging technology Hoffert et al 2002 Pacala & Socolow 2004 Revolutionary technical advancement required Now Next century Call for intensive increase in R&D Call for deployment of existing technology Need for both Compliment each other Different Perceptions of CCS Readiness and Timeframe

Some Recurring Themes – Awareness and understanding is low – but growing – Communication – Messenger – expertise and trustworthiness Pseudo opinions – Perceptions often fickle, easily changed with new information – Many different publics Different issues with CCS-host communities and the general public – Perceptions of risks and benefits integrally related if perceived benefits are high perceived risks are often lower – Connection with coal “No coal without CCS” …“No CCS because it promotes coal” – Need for CCS to be understood in broader context of portfiolio of other energy technology options – Funding for CCS communication – Orientation of research. Much appears to be “how to” for industry and government Need for self-reflection of social science researchers Public Perception, Communication, and Social Acceptance

Multiple Research Approaches and Foci – Surveys - with and without information, comparative studies – Media analysis- discourse analysis – Controlled psychological experiments – Focus groups, Dialogue sessions with analysis – Interviews Multiple Foci – Role of NGOs – CCS Experts – Learning – Risk Communication

CO 2 capture (Separation and compression) CO 2 storage (including measurement, monitoring, and verification) Transport Individual components commercially available But not yet integrated or demonstrated at scale Industrial processes small scale Several underground CO 2 storage sites each ~ 1 MtCO 2 /year EOR-CO 2 injection experience Advancement of CCS includes integration, scaling-up and demonstration 1100 miles of CO 2 Pipeline for EOR Seemingly Intractable Coal-Climate Dilemma Carbon capture & storage (CCS) has become critical in many discussions on the future of coal

FutureGen, Illinois, USA Public-private partnership, announced February 2003 as flagship program for Bush Administration Initially planned to be a zero emissions coal fired power plant (275MW) - Simultaneously demonstrating IGCC, CCS, & hydrogen production Extensive competitive site selection process resulted in high degree of outreach and awareness Restructured in 2008 (Bush) and again 2010 (Obama). Community withdrew summer 2010 when announced not going to include building a new power plant

Environmental NGOs (Wong-Parodi, Ray, and Farrell, 2008) Categorized US Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) as: enthusiasts prudents neutral but view CCS as necessary reluctants “a terrible idea that we desperately need” opponents

Environmental NGOs’ Perceptions of Geologic Sequestration (Wong-Parodi et al, 2008)

Social Public Acceptance Risk perceptions Institutional Restructured or regulated Importer exporter Regulatory and Legal Renewable Portfolio Standards State energy regulations and laws Political Energy/climate goals Power of constituents Economic Cost of electricity Employment Taxes Technical Resource availability Existing infrastructure Energy Technology Deployment Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED): An integrated research framework to understand complexity of influences Designed to capture complex interactions among societal and technological barriers preventing the change required to stabilize CO 2 for climate change mitigation. Stephens, J.C., Wilson, E.J. and Peterson, T.R., Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED): An integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75:

Mixed-methods approach to characterizing socio- political context of wind and CCS Low wind deployment High wind deployment Weak policy MTTX Strong policy MAMN Interviews of state-level energy technology stakeholders Media analysis of state-level newspapers Level of Interest in CCS Strong Weak TXMTMNMA

Frame analysis of risks and benefits FramesRisksBenefits Technical Technological limitations and uncertaintyTechnological reliability, sophistication, and advancements Economic Expensive, destabilizes local economy, i.e. reduces tourism, Low cost, strengthen economy (jobs, tourism, etc.), free resource Environmental Negative environmental consequences (bird-kills, habitat loss) Positive environmental consequences (reduce carbon emission, reduce air pollution) Health & Safety Healthy or safety concerns (glare, navigation, radar, worker safety) Health and safety improvements (i.e. reduce respiratory problems) Political Negative political ramifications, image, reputation of state or political leaders. Threat to military or political security Positive political ramifications i.e. being a leader, closer to political goals, energy independence and energy security Aesthetic and Cultural Negative visual impacts. Negative impacts on cultural, historical, or recreational sites, negative community impact. Positive visual impacts i.e. positive community impact, positive enhance local culture, bring community together. We developed six categories of risk and benefit frames adapting and building on the functional subsystems within Luhmann’s social theory of ecological communication (Luhmann 1989)

Media Analysis: An Approach to Probe and Compare Public Discourse The media…. – provides a representation of public discourse (Gamson and Modigliani 1989) – has potential to influence public perception and reinforce or potentially change the direction and scope of public discourse on a particular issue (McCombs 2004) A comparison of public discourse in four different states Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Texas

Texas Frequency of CCS Newspaper Articles Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships

MassachusettsMinnesotaMontanaTexas State Breakdown of CCS articles

Comparative Breakdown of CCS Risk and Benefit Frames by State

Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Texas Limited opportunity for CCS No regional government support for CCS Comparative State-Level Discourse on CCS Limited state-level discourse and limited opportunities for CCS No regional government support for CCS projects Strongest interest in CCS Enhanced Oil Recovery Generally positive portrayal of CCS Competition for big demonstration project FuturGen resulted in more coverage Intense coal use Governor interested in advancing CCS More positive portrayal of CCS Actual projects

General Need for More Social Science Research on Energy Technologies Need for better synchronization of technical R&D and social science R&D – investigating human dimensions and social dynamics of technology design, acceptance, and use – Need for social science to be integrated into US Department of Energy: primarily technologyical R&D. Webler and Tuler 2010 Energy Policy

Some Recurring Themes – Awareness and understanding is low – but growing – Communication – Messenger – expertise and trustworthiness Pseudo opinions – Perceptions often fickle, easily changed with new information – Many different publics Different issues with CCS-host communities and the general public – Perceptions of risks and benefits integrally related if perceived benefits are high perceived risks are often lower – Connection with coal “No coal without CCS” …“No CCS because it promotes coal” – Need for CCS to be understood in broader context of portfiolio of other energy technology options – Funding for CCS communication – Orientation of research. Much appears to be “how to” for industry and government Need for self-reflection of social science researchers Public Perception, Communication, and Social Acceptance

Conclusions Very different perceptions and discourse in different states. – Substantial variation in visions/perceptions of CCS potential risks and benefits. Public-perception has strong potential to influence development of CCS technology Perceptions of CCS’ benefits related to perceptions of need to mitigate climate change NIMBY, NUMBY and BANANA