1. Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage: Survey Evidence from Indiana David C. Warren Sanya Carley John D. Graham John A. Rupp Rachel M. Krause (UTEP) 30 th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference Washington, DC October 10, 2011 Contact: dcwarren@indiana.edu

2. Vattenfall CCS Plant, Germany 2

3. Flier from CCS opponents, Linden, New Jersey 3

4. Why Indiana? 4

5. Why study public perception of CCS? 5

6. What might affect public perception of CCS? Connection to the land Risk profile Trust in institutions Attitudes about climate change General demographics Perceptions about energy technologies Public Perceptions 6

7. To explore these questions, we conducted a two-wave telephone survey First wave: Collected demographic data and attitudes on risk, climate change, trust, etc. Respondents then were sent a CCS fact sheet Second wave: Collected data on perceptions of CCS 7

8. The survey was administered to 1,001 residents across the state Stratified sample to ensure representation by residents in coal mining, agricultural, and urban regions Bloomington 8

9. 9

10. Initial impressions: Respondents believe climate change is real and problematic 10

11. Initial impressions: Respondents are supportive of CCS Storing carbon dioxide underground is a good approach to protecting the environment 11

12. Initial impressions: Respondents are supportive of CCS Would you support the operation of a CCS facility somewhere in the U.S.? 12

13. Initial impressions: Support for a CCS facility decreases with increased proximity Support for a CCS facility in U.S., Indiana, and near home 13

14. Twenty percent of respondents had heard of CCS prior to the survey Support for CCS appears lower for those who had heard of CCS, but differences are not statistically significant 14

15. CCS supporters are different from those who oppose CCS in several ways Climate change is caused by human activities Reducing greenhouse gasses is important Believe technical information provided by environmental orgs Risk score (higher number = perception of riskier world) Agree that storing carbon is good approach Disagree that storing carbon is good approach 15

16. Those who strongly oppose CCS are also quite different from others in several ways Climate change is caused by human activities Reducing greenhouse gasses is important Politically conservative Risk score (higher number = perception of riskier world) Strongly disagree that storing carbon is good approach All other respondents 16

17. Logistic regression analysis suggests potential factors impacting CCS support Negative correlation High income Politically conservative Fear of CCS in community Prior awareness of CCS Dependent variable: “Storing carbon dioxide underground is a good approach to protecting the environment” Positive correlation Agree that energy and environmental problems require lifestyle change Perceive a higher degree of risk in the world 17

18. Next steps Shorter term: Further multivariate analysis exploring both support of and opposition to CCS Longer term: Follow-up surveys to explore how impressions change over time 18

19. Questions / Comments? For more questions, comments, and drafts of our paper, please contact Dave Warren at dcwarren@indiana.edu 19