Implications for Policy and Research Needs

Zaller (1992) argues that the lay public does not have well formed opinions on most issues which are not of immediate salience or relevance to their everyday life and livelihood. Converse (1964) similarly criticise the ‘expectation of opinionness’ which is an underpinning assumption of much survey research. Opinions and perceptions are, instead, shaped by (inter alia) the media and other marketing efforts of stakeholders. There are several very good examples of such shaping having taken place, e.g. in the case of disposal of the Brent Spa platform, Greenpeace was successful in convincing the media, and consequently the general public, that disposal at sea would incur unacceptable environmental risks (Smith 2000). A further example is the role of the media and campaign groups in shaping perceptions of GMOs in Europe in the late 1990s. Feedbacks between the media and public opinion are also documented, and have been formalised in the theory of risk amplification (Jaeger et al. 2001), which maintains that risk perceptions can become amplified through media presentations, and subsequent stakeholder responses.

The implication of such theory and real-cases is that because there is not a strong a priori belief in favour or against CCS, public opinion on CO2 storage could, at some future stage, be strongly shaped

by stakeholder groups, including the media or NGOs, who come themselves to formulate a strong opinion. As Wynne (1995, 1996) notes, bereft of sufficient technical knowledge, the public may come

to rely upon their sense of trust in the organisations involved, and in their past institutional performance, when assessing a new technology such as CCS. Research is not able to anticipate how public perceptions might change, possibly dramatically and rapidly, in response to pro-active stakeholder and media interventions and real-world events, though it can provide lessons from the past and guidance on ‘good practice’ in the communication of risks and uncertainty (Powell & Leiss 1997).

With the above proviso clearly in mind, the results suggest that public reactions to CCS could be reasonably supportive of the technology, provided that its purpose is well understood and that the key risks are acknowledged. This research suggests that proponents of CCS need to put their case clearly in the context of reducing the risks of global climate change, and the concomitant need for large long- term reductions in CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The use of CCS as part of a portfolio of

decarbonisation options which range from new technologies, to lifestyle change, should be stressed, rather than presenting CCS as a ‘stand alone’ option. A partnership approach to control and regulation of CCS would be generally welcomed, in which government, industry and environmental NGOs each have a role to play.

With respect to public decision-making, the citizen panels could be reconvened to explore more specific CCS proposals or projects once they are on the table or in the pipeline. Alternatively, a new ‘bespoke’ panel could be established to discuss a specific CCS proposal or project, e.g. drawn from the local occupants and stakeholders near to the proposed project.

6.7. Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge additional funding from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in the UK. We would also like to extend our thanks to the participants of the Citizen Panels, the interviewee respondents and the experts who presented material during the Panels (Bill Senior, Kevin Anderson, Paul Freund, Dorian Speakman, Michelle Brooks and Guy Wallbanks). We are grateful to Liverpool John Lennon International Airport for allowing us to conduct interviews on site. Finally we would like to thank the considerable help provided by two anonymous reviewers.

This chapter was previously published as a paper in Climate Policy (2005) Vol 4 pp.377-398 and is reproduced here with permission.

6.8. References

Adams, J., (1995), Risk, UCL Press, London, UK. CAA (2004), www.caa.co.uk/erg/erg_stats/default.asp

Converse, P. (1964) ‘The nature of belief systems in mass publics’ in D. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, Free Press, USA.

Curry, T., Reiner, D., Ansolabehere, S. and Herzog, H. (2004), ‘How aware is the public of carbon capture and storage?’ in E. Rubin, D. Keith and C. Gilboy (eds), Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations, IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Cheltenham, UK.

Darier, E., Gough, C., de Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Grove-White, R., Kitchener, D., Pereira, A., Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. (1999), ‘Between democracy and expertise? Citizen’s participation and environmental integrated assessment in Italy (Venice) and St.Helens (UK)’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 1(2), pp.103-121.

Darier, E., Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. (1999a), ‘Towards a ‘folk integrated assessment’ of climate change?’, International Journal of Environment and Pollution 11(3), pp. 351-372.

Department of Work and Pensions (2003), Family Resources Survey 2002-2003, available at www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs

Energy White Paper (2003) Our Energy Future: Creating a Low Carbon Economy, Cm5761, HMSO, London, UK.

Environment Audit Committee (2003), Budget 2003 and Aviation, Ninth Report of Session 2002–3, House of Commons, London, UK.

Eurobarometer, (2003), Energy Issues, Options and Technologies: A Survey of Public Opinion in Europe, Energy DG, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.

de Figueiredo, M.A. (2002), The Hawaii Carbon Dioxide Ocean Sequestration Field Experiment: A Case Study in Public Perceptions and Institutional Effectiveness, Masters Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, USA.

Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S. (2002), ‘Burying carbon under the sea: an initial exploration of public opinion’, Energy & Environment, 13(6), 883-900.

Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J. and Speers, T. (2003), Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media, Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon, UK.

House of Lords, (2000), Science and Society, Third report, House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, Houses of Parliament, London, UK.

Huijts, N. (2003), Public Perception of Carbon Dioxide Storage, Masters Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands.

Hunt, J. and Wynne, B. (2000), Forums for Dialogue: Developing Legitimate Authority through Communication and Consultation, A Contract Report for Nirex, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK.

IEA GHG (2004), Report of Risk Assessment Workshop held in London, UK, February 2004, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Report NO. PH4/31 July, Cheltenham, UK.

Irwin, A. and Michaels, M. (2003), Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.

Itaoka, K.,Saito, A. and Akai, M. (2004), ‘Public acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technology: A

survey of public opinion to explore influential factors’ in (eds) E. Rubin, D. Keith and C. Gilboy, Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations, IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Cheltenham, UK.

Jaeger, C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. and Webler, T. (2001), Risk, Uncertainty and Rational Action, Earthscan, London, UK.

Kasemir, B., Jager, J., Jaeger, C. and Gardner, M. (eds.) (2003), Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Lorenzoni, I. (2003), Present Futures, Future Climates: A Cross-Cultural Study of Perceptions in Italy and in the UK, PhD Dissertation, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Nogasplant website: http://www.nogasplant.co.uk

Overwyrefocus website: http://www.overwyrefocus.co.uk/gas_storage/gas_articles.htm

Palmgren, C., Granger Morgan, M., Bruine de Bruin, W. and Keith, D. (2004), ‘Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of CO2’, Environmental Science and

Technology 38 (24) pp.6441-6450.

Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. (2003), Public Perceptions of Risk, Science and Governance, Centre for Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 60pp.

Powell, D. and Leiss, W. (1997), Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication, McGill-Queen’s University Press.

RCEP (1998), Setting Environmental Standards, 21st _{Report of the Royal Commission on}

Environmental Pollution, London, UK.

Shackley, S., Kersey, J., Wilby, R. and Fleming, P., (2001), Changing by Degrees: The Potential Impacts of Climate Change in the East Midlands, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.

Smith, J. (2000), ‘After the Brent Spa’ in The Daily Globe: Environmental Change, the Public and the Media. J. Smith (ed.), Earthscan, London, UK.

Upton, G. and Cook, I. (1997), Understanding Statistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wynne, B. (1995), ‘Public Understanding of Science’ in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA., 361-388. Wynne, B. (1996), ‘May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide’

in Risk, Environment and Modernity, S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne (eds.) Sage Publications, London, UK, 44-84.

Zaller, J. (1992), The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

i _{Samantha was one of the more vocal of the participants. She was a 21 year old administrator with no particular prior}

socio-economic or educational reason for her high level of engagement that we could ascertain.

ii _{The group (and the facilitator) did not make any explicit distinction in the above discussion between ‘individual’}

behaviours and behavioural change, and more ‘collective’ behaviours and their potential for change. On the other hand, the group were implicitly distinguishing between actions taken voluntarily by individuals (e.g. recycling, or reduction of energy consumption, use of public transport, etc.) and the actions of government which did not involve voluntary change by individuals. Some of the tension in the discussion reflected the need for collective governmental actions given individual apathy on the one hand, but the suspicion of policy by dictate from the centre on the other.

iii _{The exact relationship between these perspectives and beliefs and values would require precise definitions of ‘beliefs’ and}