4th Social Research Network Meeting

Publication Overview

 The overall aim of the Social Research Network is “to foster the conduct and dissemination of social science research related to CCS in order to improve understanding of public concerns as well as improve the understanding of the processes required for deploying projects”.

Publication Summary

• Session 1 examined setting the scene for social science research in CCS. It was suggested by Myles Allen that having climate policies that can cope with uncertainty are developed. As well it is clear that risk adaptation will play a major role in the future of CCS projects. The idea of a cumulative emission budget is positive for CCS (industry will have to pay for it over time) and shows that CCS has a goal. EOR is one method of facilitating and perhaps encouraging the implementation of CCS, but researchers are still missing good visual tools to communicate each component. For NGO’s it was discussed that there is a potential role for CCS with old assets, when the hidden value of current assets are factored in, but the EOR ‘jury’ is still out given the total project lifecycle.
• Session 2 presentations, on the policy and practice in Canada, showed that structural arrangements, considerable preparation and a bit of scepticism (!) matters. The policy environment is a driver and provides an important context for the entry of new technology into the public arena. Legal, regulatory and financial decisions can help to frame the significance of an issue. For practicing communicators who want to build a stronger base for practice it is imperative to prepare – to start where the public is, to explore their perceptions, to understand their concerns and use these to inform communication approaches. It is equally as important to understand the framers’ interests and strategies for amplifying or attenuating risk.
• When looking at social science trends and the international atmosphere – session 3, a survey (about CCS risk/returns) of Chinese bankers showed that there is an improved understanding of CCS over the last 7 years, but there are still concerns regarding cost and energy penalties. The prioritisation of risks has been acknowledged as a key aspect but there is no policy in place for large CCS projects. A catastrophic event such as the Fukushima nuclear incident (2011) can cast a negative light over other, similar technologies. It is important to understand the limitations of risk assessments and the different views of experts – science and policy need to be ‘bridged’ to enable decision-making. It is interesting (but not unexpected) to see that after such an event, the public will often change its opinion – in Japan, the public became more energy-aware, had some appetite for increased costs for cleaner (and safer) energy and preferred more renewable energy sources (e.g. solar) over coal and nuclear.
• Session 4 looked into the methodologies used in social science research and CCS. The Q methodology illustrates how people value subjective topics and the individual versus group ranking showed the impact of a deliberative process. It was demonstrated that the active use of social media can create an enhanced learning environment and interest in action, without increasing (or decreasing) the content learned. The attitudes of those within the environment suggested the value of community formation and deliberation was high. An online interactive tool has been utilised successfully to gain views on energy sources and costs; a tool which requires the users to consider trade-offs and that could be considered as an analogue for deliberative process. The value of creating a group process for social research and public engagement activities in CCS is important and should be considered.
• Session 5, looking at communicating CCS and science, is obviously a hugely important aspect to consider. It is important to know what elements of a risk message regarding CCS are viewed by people as persuasive, but it is much easier to persuade someone with negative arguments than with positive ones. Understanding how people perceive the sources of scientific information – some groups may not be as credible and trustworthy as we think or hope – can also be a critical component of project communication. There are potential pitfalls associated with three of the common risk communication strategies for CCS – scattering, emphasis framing and greening. We saw that the public seem to trust impartiality rather than persuasive agendas.
• The perception of risk (Session 6) is a key topic in communications and is extremely important with CCS. A protocol for response to claims of the leakage of CO2 has been developed by researchers as a potential way to avoid many communication problems. It was felt this will be beneficial in avoiding long running allegations, and avoid unqualified sources reaching incorrect conclusions. At the same time, preventing (or minimise the amount of) inaccurate information influencing the public. It is well known that public acceptance impacts implementation success and that the emotional reaction to complex technologies is important, as it affects people’s ability to make a decision. If there are more perceived risks, it is likely that the public will find it more difficult to form an opinion, which is important to the formation of closed attitudes. Stakeholder engagement and decision support was looked at in Session 6, which considered risk communication as a boundary process (so merging content and intent). CCS is being considered by the public, but their concerns are centred around costs, greenhouse gas emissions and air quality.
• Much research has been done on the responses to CCS, visited in Session 7, including work on social site characterisation which noted the similarities (i.e. understanding that CCS is part of climate policy) and differences (risk perception or economic benefit being of most importance) in the local public’s opinions on two potential CCS sites in different countries. It was recognised that an open dialogue is key. In developing countries such as South Africa, the development of basic infrastructure is still an issue. The language problem for communication needs to be addressed for different cultures and stakeholder engagement is especially important; the government and head of the local community concerned should be involved from the very beginning.
• It was recognised that the perceptions of pipelines (Session 8) was similar to CCS in general and seemed to centre around specific themes including trust, safety, visibility and local impact. The risk profiles for a project evolve with the stages of operation and it is crucial that the safety record of a project is explicit. It was observed that the terminology used in communications can present challenges with many different projects – something which can perhaps be further looked into. Issues recognised at pipelines were similar to those seen in CCS projects – approval, land use, proximity to other activities and regulations.