Being told does not change any thing

Transcription

1 Trondheim, June 16 th th Trondheim Conference on C0 2 Capture, Transport and Storage TCCS-6 Being told does not change any thing The relationship between knowing about CCS as an idea and supporting practical experiments Hans Y. Torvatn a, Sturle D. Tvedt b, Diana Schumann c, a SINTEF, Norway, b The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway c Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH, IEK-STE, Germany 1

2 Outline of the presentation The 6 nation study on CCS communication (and some additional Norwegian data) The topic of this study: Initial attitude of CCS The presentation of the study and the question we were asked from the audience A preliminary investigation in Norwegian data Additional data creates additional confusion Combining and reanlysis Some conclusions 2

3 Scrutinizing the impact of communication of CCS In Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Romania and UK undertook a large investigation of attitude towards CCS and how communication and information changed that attitude Part of this investigation was a set of representative surveys (N= ) in each country Included several measurements of overall attitude towards CCS Due to an error made by the polling firm conducting the survey in Norway the survey had to be repeated in Norway. The first attempt from october 2009 the polling firm made and error in the section on risk assessment. The second attempt in January 2010 got it right. However, large parts of the data October 2009 data was perfectly fine, including the first measure of attitude towards CCS. Later a master student here at NTNU carried out a study in June 2010 employing the same survey. We did not have much time to analyse the different samples, but looked at the January 2010 sample in all our presentations and publications. As for example the next one. 3

4 (Self-reported) awareness of CCS 4 Total 60,4 31,9 7,7 UK 61,9 31,8 6,3 Romania 75,7 21,4 2,9 Norway 37,4 45,2 17,4 Never heard about CCS Heard a little bit The Netherlands 50 44,5 5,5 Heard quite a bit Greece 76,5 18,7 4,8 Germany 61,9 28,3 9,7 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % Question:Have you heard about Carbon dioxide capture and storage (also known as Carbon dioxide capture and sequestration )? n=6168

5 CSS Nuclear Wind Use of CCS and different energy technologies to address global warming 5 UK 6,8 8,3 84,9 Romania 6,6 2,8 90,6 Norway 5,6 7,8 86,6 The Netherlands 2,8 6,8 90,4 Greece 31,5 95,5 Germany 4,5 3,4 92,1 UK 35,5 20,4 44,1 Romania 54,5 8,1 37,4 Norway The Netherlands 44,2 59,2 20,4 17,3 35,4 23,5 Not use Neutral Greece 77,9 5,9 16,2 Use Germany 63,7 13,7 22,6 UK 20,7 32,1 47,2 Romania 19 13,9 67,1 Norway 32,9 28,6 38,5 The Netherlands 30,7 27,9 41,4 Greece 18,9 17,9 63,2 Germany 37,7 23,5 38,8 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % Question: (...). If you were responsible for designing a plan to adress global warming, which of the technologies would you use? (here: CCS, Nuclear and Wind shown as an example) n=6168

6 Some results and one question from the audience about the Impact project The previous to slides showed you some of the results we (and myself in Norway) presented when we presented the study. Two important results: Self reported awareness about CCS varied considerably between the countries. Norway had the highest awareness, Rumania and Greece the lowest. Attitudes towards CCS varied considerably between the countries. Greece and Rumania had the highest positive evaluation of CCS. One conclusion leapfrogged at from the audience was that: There is a negative relationship between awareness of CCS and support for CCS. Will support for CCS decline as knowledge increase? We never made that conclusion, but we had to instigate The first we tried to look at in the Norwegian sample (Jan 10) 6

7 A regression analysis of initial attitude towards CCS We carried out a linear regression analysis with dependent variable initial attitude towards CCS Independent variables: Gender Age Education Knowledge (Three different measurements and self reported awareness) Perceived importance of environment Pre-existing attitudes towards Renewables (solar and wind in Norway), coal and nuclear energy Use of information sources (Mass media and specialist publications) Trust in information providers (Official authorities, experts, journalists, etc) 7

8 Model B Std. Error Beta t sig. (Constant) 1,063,579 1,836,067 Education -,032,042 -,024 -,765,444 Age,015,004,126 3,943,000 Gender -,470,117 -,144-4,025,000 Importance of environment,148,041,128 3,622,000 Pre-existing attitude towards solar energy,084,053,057 1,581,114 Pre-existing attitude towards wind energy -,011,040 -,010 -,287,774 Pre-existing attitude towards biomass energy,002,037,002,057,954 Pre-existing attitude towards coal,012,043,009,274,784 Pre-existing attitude towards natural gas,072,035,067 2,049,041 Pre-existing attitude towards nuclear energy,021,029,024,696,486 Mass media as a source of information,010,014,025,756,450 Specialist media as a source of information,002,017,003,107,915 Trust in government as information provider,060,017,125 3,480,001 Trust in experts,026,021,050 1,255,210 General knowledge on environmental issues and science,020,043,015,469,639 Knowledge on activities contributing to CO2 build-up -,068,048 -,047-1,419,156 Knowledge on CCS -,027,035 -,030 -,752,452 Self-reported awareness of CCS,410,093,179 4,435,000 Dependent variable: Initial attitude towards CCS (N=1000) Adj,. R 2.121

9 Summary of results The model is not very strong, but there are some findings The important factors determining initial attitude would seem to be: Age (elder more supportive) Gender (men more supportive) Importance of environment (more important, more support) Self reported awareness (higher awareness more supportive) Trust in government as information sources (higer trust, higher initial support) Pre xisting attitude towards use of natural gas (in Norway CCS debates have been about gas, not coal) Note that Knowledge about environment and trust in experts does not matter (this trust is high) 9

10 Development over time in Norway- 3 different samples Oct 2009 (N=1300) Jan 2010 (N=1300) June 2010 (N=1000) No Somewhat Yes, a great bit Initial attitude, mean on 7 point scale 4,19 4,29 4,25 10

11 Model B Std. Error Beta t. Sig. (Constant),730,280 2,607,009 Age,012,002,102 5,929,000 Gender -,292,060 -,087-4,848,000 Pre-existing attitude towards solar energy,031,028,021 1,107,268 Pre-existing attitude towards wind energy,000,023,000 -,004,997 Pre-existing attitude towards bio energy,064,020,056 3,236,001 Pre-existing attitude towards coal,032,022,026 1,494,135 Pre-existing attitude towards gas,036,019,033 1,934,053 Mass media as source of information,013,007,033 1,811,070 Specialist media as source of information -,004,009 -,008 -,463,643 Web as source of informatio,050,016,055 3,115,002 Bloggs/wikis as source of information,030,017,032 1,821,069 Trust in government,064,009,133 6,781,000 Trust in experts,036,011,068 3,268,001 Knowledge on Activities contributing to CO2 build-up -,012,025 -,009 -,490,624 Knowledge on CCS -,014,018 -,015 -,768,443 General knowledge on environmental issues and science,062,027,039 2,299,022 Self reported awareness,372,048,158 7,717,000 Dependent variable: Initial attitude N= 3600 R2. adj:.0106

12 Combining three samples into a bigger one Still low explanatory power (but we lack importance of environment) Mostly the same variables are predictors, but some changes: General knowledge of climate change is important Web use as source of information comes across as important Expert trust is importance And self reported awareness IS important still in deciding attitude towards CCS Mean score on initial attitude No: 3.78 Somewhat: 4.42 Yes a great bit:

13 Being told does not help, heaving heard matters An attitude can be defined as a general favorable, unfavourable or neutral evaluation of a persone, object or issue. (Petty & Ccioppo, 1986) The key word is evaluation When a person own awareness of CCS changes his evaluation has changed in the same process Having heard a little helps, but having a great deal of information changes even more This process involves not only knowledge about CCS, but also issues about trust (as we can see in this presentation), other opinions of related issues, and also risk evaluation (not discussed here) Seen from the point of view of gainig public support the good news of this paper is that continuing to inform the public in various sources will over time gain support The bad news is of course that it will take time. 13