Download Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?

Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop:
What do the locals think?
Talia Jeanneret, Peta Ashworth, Liz Hobman and Naomi Boughen
EP112438
April 2011
Prepared for:
Dominique Van Gent, of Western Australia
Department of Mines and Petroleum
Peter Grubnic, Global CCS Institute
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Enquiries should be addressed to:
Peta Ashworth
[email protected]
Copyright and Disclaimer
© 2011 CSIRO To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered
by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of
CSIRO.
Important Disclaimer
CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on
scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or
unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information
without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO
(including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but
not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from
using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. The views expressed
herein are not necessarily the views of the Global CCS Institute, and the Institute does not accept responsibility
for any information or advice contained therein.
Acknowledgement
CSIRO acknowledges the financial and other support provided by the Global CCS Institute. CSIRO
acknowledges the contributions of workshop presenters Dr Bill Lilley and Dr Linda Stalker.
2
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
CONTENTS
Executive summary
6
1
Introduction
7
2
Methodology
7
2.1
Recruitment
7
2.2
Process
8
2.3
Data collection and analysis
9
3
Participant Characteristics
10
4
Environmental Profile
11
4.1
4.2
11
12
5
Beliefs
Current energy related behaviour
Awareness, Knowledge and Attitudes
12
5.1
Awareness of climate change
12
5.2
Awareness of energy sources and technology
13
5.3
Self-rated knowledge about climate change and related issues
14
5.4
Self-rated knowledge of energy sources and related technologies
14
5.5
Actual knowledge of climate change, energy and related issues
15
5.6
Attitudes toward climate change and related issues
16
5.6.1
Climate change
17
5.6.2
Increased action on climate change
17
5.7
5.6.3 Increasing the price of electricity
Attitudes towards energy sources and related technologies
17
18
5.7.1
Solar, Wave/Tidal and Wind
18
5.7.2
Geothermal
19
5.7.3
Natural gas
20
5.7.4
Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage
20
5.7.5
Nuclear
21
5.7.6
Coal and Oil
21
5.8
Energy technology preferences
22
5.9
Willingness to pay more for electricity
23
3
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
6
Intended behaviour as a result of the workshop
24
6.1
Energy related behaviour
24
6.2
Information seeking and sharing
25
6.3
Further information
26
7.
Trust in information sources
26
8.
Key messages from the process
27
8.1
Climate change
27
8.2
Urgent action required
28
8.3
Leadership
29
8.4
Policy
29
8.5
Trust
30
8.6
Role of the individual
31
8.7
Culture and lifestyle
31
8.8
Information and awareness
32
8.9
Technology concerns
32
9.
Key questions
33
10.
Evaluation of workshop
38
10.1 Workshop activities and features
38
10.2 Trust
38
10.3 Workshop purpose
39
References
40
Appendix A – Pre-Workshop, Process and
Post-Workshop Questionnaires
41
Appendix B – Sample Characteristics
65
Appendix C – Digivote
67
Appendix D – Presentations
71
4
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
List of Figures
Figure 1
Advertisement
8
Figure 2
Completion of survey by workshop participants
8
Figure 3
Plenary session
9
Figure 4
Opening Digivote responses to gender and age questions.
10
Figure 5
Environmental beliefs
11
Figure 6
Environmental behaviours
12
Figure 7
Awareness of climate change and related issues
13
Figure 8
Awareness of energy sources and related technologies
13
Figure 9
Mean changes in knowledge of climate change and related issues (pre- vs. post-workshop)
14
Figure 10
Mean changes in knowledge of energy sources and related technologies (pre- vs. post-workshop)
15
Figure 11
Mean changes in attitude toward climate change and related issues (pre-, process and
post-workshop)
16
Mean changes in attitudes toward energy sources and related technologies (pre-, process
and post-workshop)
18
Figure 13
Opening (am) and closing (pm) Digivote results for support of solar energy
19
Figure 14
Opening (am) and closing (pm) Digivote results for support of geothermal energy
19
Figure 15
Opening (am) and closing (pm) Digivote results for support of CCS.
20
Figure 16
Opening (am) and closing (pm) Digivote responses for support of nuclear power in Australia
21
Figure 17
Changes in priority of the mean preferred energy technology (pre- vs. post-workshop)
22
Figure 18
Opening (am) and closing (pm) Digivote responses showing willingness to pay more for electricity
24
Figure 19
Mean intended energy related behaviour as a result of the workshop
25
Figure 20
Mean intended information seeking and sharing behaviour as a result of the workshop
25
Figure 21
Mean trust in information sources
26
Figure 12
List of Tables
Table 1
Frequency of participant responses to True and False statements
16
Table 2
Changes in priority of the mean preferred energy technology (pre- vs. post-workshop)
22
Table 3
Willingness to pay more for electricity
23
Table 4
The extent of willingness to pay more for electricity
31
Table 5
Ways participant understanding was improved
38
Table 6
Evaluation of workshop features
38
5
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Executive summary
Low emission energy technologies have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions substantially over the
coming decades. However, without community support the implementation of such technologies could be severely
hampered. The CSIRO’s Science into Society Group, in conjunction with the Western Australia Department of
Mines and Petroleum, conducted a workshop in Harvey, Western Australia in February 2011.
The aims of the workshop were to: a) assess the public’s knowledge and attitudes towards climate change science
and low emissions energy technologies, particularly CCS; b) establish a framework for future public participation
in studies and evaluation of the Collie Hub concept; and c) explore the effectiveness of a participatory one-day
workshop process to enable more informed dialogue about the issues and risks regarding climate change science and
energy technology options.
In total, 32 people participated in this workshop. Participants were drawn from a list of identified stakeholders
combined with members of the general public, who were recruited via advertising in local newspapers and
announcements on local radio. The workshop was co-ordinated by a lead facilitator and consisted of plenary and
small round table discussion time. Information was presented on climate change and low emission energy sources
and related technologies, followed by a presentation on CCS and the Collie Hub project.
To track changes in knowledge and attitudes, participants completed a series of questionnaires before, during
and after the workshop. The questionnaires also collected demographic data and information about participants’
environmental orientation. Small group discussion was recorded in order to collect qualitative data.
The workshop resulted in a number of significant improvements in participants’ self-rated knowledge of climate
change and related issues. The vast majority of participants expressed agreement that climate change was an
important issue to Australia. Participants’ self-rated knowledge of 4 out of the 12 energy sources and related
technologies discussed in the workshop was significantly improved. Levels of support for the range of energy sources
and technologies varied greatly. However, participants tended to be more supportive of renewable energy.
In relation to CCS there were significant changes in the mean level of knowledge and mean funding priority rating.
Attitudes towards CCS also shifted to become more supportive; however, this was not statistically significant.
These results reflect the prominence of CCS as a presentation topic and subject of discussion during the workshop.
Participant feedback indicated there were concerns about the potential risks and effectiveness of CCS technology.
Participants were also interested in the potential for carbon dioxide to be used as a resource.
Key messages that arose from the discussions about climate change and low-emission energy sources and related
technologies included:
• acknowledgment that urgent action is required;
• the belief that strong leadership would be critical;
• recognition that policy changes will be needed if any action on climate is to be achieved;
• the importance of trust and transparency in process;
• a recognition that individuals wanted to make a difference but require guidance on what their role might be;
• the significance of culture and lifestyle for preferred action choices, especially when contrasting the developed and
developing world;
• the importance of having accurate information to raise awareness of the issues; and
• a list of technology concerns, particularly in relation to CCS.
6
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
1 Introduction
Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is being proposed as a key mitigation strategy for fossil fuel based
industries. Australia is deeply entwined with the international movement to progress the deployment of CCS and
is considered one of the leaders in terms of the approach that governments, both state and national, have taken to
progress its deployment. However, like many new and emerging technologies, CCS remains relatively unknown with
some perceived risks. If not addressed, evidence has shown that these risks and general lack of understanding about
the technology will have a serious impact on the successful deployment of CCS. This has been particularly evident in
Europe over the past year (Desbarats et al. 2010).
In May 2009, the Australian Government pledged AU$2.425 billion over nine years for the CCS Flagships program.
This included $2 billion in new funding for development of low emission coal technologies and to support two to
four industrial-scale CCS projects. As a result of a competitive process, on 8 December 2009, Minister Ferguson
announced a shortlist of four CCS projects (DRET, 2010). The Collie Hub project in the South West of Western
Australia (WA) was one of those shortlisted.
The Collie Hub project has been established to examine the options of CCS in the South West of WA. Initial
studies have identified the Lesueur formation, north of Kemerton industrial area, as the best potential storage site
for CO2. The next stage of the project includes new data collection and analysis involving a seismic survey and a
drilling project to obtain deep core samples.
Recognising the importance of early stakeholder engagement to progress the project through its various stages,
the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum engaged the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation (CSIRO) to conduct one of its low emission energy technology workshops in Harvey. The
aim of the workshop was twofold: first, to provide participants with the latest information on the topic of climate
change and low emission energy technologies, including an update on the Collie Hub project. Second, to understand
participants’ views and reactions to the information presented, as part of the CSIRO’s ongoing research aimed at
understanding the Australian publics’ perceptions of the range of low emission energy technologies.
This report presents the outcomes of this workshop. It provides a detailed description of the methodology used in
the workshop; a summary of the workshop participants’ characteristics and their environmental profiles; a summary
of the descriptive statistics of the key measures taken throughout the workshop process, including qualitative data
examples to support the key research findings; and finally, a discussion of the key messages that emerged from the
workshop and an evaluation of its effectiveness.
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Recruitment
Recruitment for the workshop was initially targeted towards stakeholders of the Collie Hub Project including
Members of Parliament, Shire Councils, business and industry representatives and community groups. Invitations
were distributed via email to 67 stakeholders within the South West region of Western Australia. Separate
invitations to attend the workshop were also posted to 15 landowners located near the site of the Collie Hub
Project. In order to maximise attendance, invitees who had confirmed their attendance were encouraged to
forward the invitation and workshop details to their colleagues and other community members. The workshop
was advertised in local newspapers (see Figure 1) and described as an opportunity to receive the latest information
about, and voice an opinion on, the energy future of Western Australia. Media coverage on local radio was also used
to advertise the workshop. In total, 32 people attended the workshop.
7
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Figure 1. Advertisement
2.2 Process
Consistent with previous workshops, to maximise the ability of the general public to attend the workshop was held
on a Saturday between 9am and 4.30pm. In an effort to build group identity and enhance discussion, participants
were seated at round tables with about 6 – 8 people at each table. In addition to the lead facilitator, who had the
role of keeping the process to time and participants on task, a facilitator was assigned to each table to maximise
participation and ensure that group processes were adhered to.
Figure 2. Completion of survey by workshop participants
The workshop was opened by the lead facilitator who explained the context of the workshop and the focus for the
day. After introductions, but prior to any discussions or presentations, participants were asked to complete an initial
questionnaire to assess their self-rated knowledge and attitudes toward climate change and energy technologies,
and to collect demographic data. Once completed participants used a digital voting system, Digivote, to determine
the pre-workshop attitudes of the group towards climate change and energy technologies. The aim was 1) to build
the group identity of the participants as members of the larger group; and 2) to provide feedback to the group
about the range of views in the room. After the Digivote session, the small group discussions commenced with table
facilitators leading discussions around participants’ awareness of climate change and energy technologies.
8
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Following the scene setting discussion an expert presented information about climate change and low emission
energy technologies, presenting both the benefi ts and barriers of each technology. The next presentation, by
a geological storage expert, focussed particularly on CCS and the Collie Hub Project. After the presentations,
participants completed a second questionnaire to assess their perceptions of the group, the experts and the
information provided.
After lunch, time was provided to allow each of the small groups to deliberate on the information presented.
Participants were asked to share their reactions to the information, their concerns and preferences for the range
of energy options presented, and also to identify what further information they felt was needed. This process
was aimed at creating the necessary conditions for individuals to make their own assessments about each of the
technologies. Each group was given the opportunity to seek further information from the experts by raising a
question flag, providing further opportunity for reflection.
After the small group deliberation, the participants remained in the room with the experts and a person to facilitate
and engaged in a question and answer session. At the same time the other facilitators convened in a break out
room to summarise the main findings from each of the individual table discussions. The lead facilitator collated this
feedback into a number of key messages which were then shared with the full group in a plenary session. These key
messages were clarified as necessary and endorsed by the group. Time was then spent reflecting on the learning
that had taken place over the day. To close, participants were asked to complete a third questionnaire to measure
changes in knowledge, attitudes and perceptions; and then participated in another round of Digivote questions to
record any changes in attitudes of the group over the course of the day.
Figure 3. Plenary session
2.3 Data collection and analysis
Quantitative data was collected using questionnaires which participants completed at the beginning, middle and
end of the process (pre-, process and post-workshop). A copy of each questionnaire is contained in Appendix A.
The questionnaires served two purposes: first, to quantify and assess participants’ knowledge and understanding of
climate change and energy technologies; and second, to assess the effectiveness of the large group process including
elements of trust, building social identity and group cohesion.
The quantitative measures of the pre- and post- questionnaires are reported through descriptive statistics namely
means and standard deviations. The effectiveness of the process was assessed primarily using the change in means
of the measures. T-tests (p < .05) were used to identify if the changes in responses were significant. Measures which
did not seek to compare change between the pre-and post-questionnaire responses are reported using descriptive
statistics only.
Qualitative data was also collected with each of the table conversations being audio-taped and then transcribed
verbatim. The transcriptions were analysed to identify key themes, which encompass the range of ideas, attitudes
and beliefs expressed by the participants. The qualitative analysis helped to identify in more detail participants’
“actual” knowledge as well as to provide more detail about the concerns they may have about particular energy
technologies.
9
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
3 PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS
Although it was hoped that a larger number of participants (up to 100) might attend given that the workshop was
planned on a weekend, there were only 32 participants in total. Of the 32 participants, the majority stayed until the
end of the workshop, however three participants had to leave before the end of the day due to prior engagements.
As such, only 29 participants completed the post-workshop questionnaire.
There was an almost equal representation of males (50%, n=16) and females (46.9%, n=15) among the workshop
participants who were aged from 22 to 75 years, with a mean age of 54 years. The age distribution was skewed
towards older age groups with approximately one third of participants aged over 65 years according to individual
survey results. The majority of workshop participants held a tertiary level education (68.7%, n=22), with 15.6%
(n=5) having completed a diploma, 40.6% (n=13) a bachelor or honours degree, and 12.5% (n=4) a postgraduate
degree. Such high levels of education in the majority of a group are quite unique compared to previous workshops
that CSIRO has conducted on climate change and low emission energy technologies.
Figure 4. Opening Digivote responses to gender and age questions.
More than half of workshop participants were in paid employment (62.5%, n=20), with 25% (n=8) employed fulltime, 21.9% (n=7) self employed and 15.6% (n=5) employed part-time or casual. About one fifth of participants
(21.9%) were retired or pension recipients, while 13% were either unemployed (6.3%, n=2), performed home duties
(3.1%, n=1) or studied full-time (3.1%, n=1). A range of occupations were represented, the most frequent being
professional (18.8%, n=6), followed by manager (12.5%, n=4) and other (12.5%, n=4).
A range of household income brackets were represented, ranging from $10,000 – 19,999 to more than $250,000.
The most frequent household income was between $150,000 – 199,999 (15.6%, n=5), followed by $100,000 –
124,999 (12.5%, n=4) and $40,000 – 49,999 (12.5%, n=4).
10
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
4 Environmental profile
Participants were asked a number of questions about their environmental beliefs in the pre-questionnaire. Individuals
with pro-environmental beliefs have been found to demonstrate more positive support for action to address
climate change and alternative energy solutions (Brandon and Lewis, 1999). As a whole, this sample group exhibited
moderate pro-environmental beliefs, with most indicating a strong commitment to behaviours that conserve energy
and resources.
4.1 Beliefs
Fifteen statements about environmental beliefs (Figure 5) from Dunlap et al.’s (2000) New Ecological Paradigm
(NEP) Scale were averaged to form a single summary measure that ranged from 1= anti-environmental beliefs, 4=
unsure, to 7= pro-environmental beliefs. The range of responses ranged from 2.45 to 6.35, with an average of 4.50
(SD=1.70). These scores reflect a moderate level of environmental beliefs within the group. The highest mean levels
of support were accorded to the statements ‘Despite all our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of
nature’ and ‘Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.’
Figure 5. Environmental beliefs
11
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
4.2 Current energy related behaviour
Participants answered ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to a range of statements to indicate their current energy related behaviour.
Figure 6 shows that the majority of participants already engaged in recycling (90.6%, n=29), conserved electricity at
home (90.6%, n=29), used energy-efficient light bulbs (87.5%, n=28), and considered energy-efficiency ratings when
purchasing white goods (90.6%, n=29). The behaviour least carried out by participants was paying extra for ‘green’
electricity, with about one fifth of participants (21.9%, n=7) responding ‘Yes’ to this statement.
Figure 6. Environmental behaviours
5 Awareness, knowledge and attitudes
Participants were asked to answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to a range of topic areas to indicate their awareness of a) climate
change and related issues; and b) energy sources and technologies. Participants were also asked questions around
their self-rated knowledge and attitudes in relation to climate change and energy technologies, as measured by the
pre- and post-questionnaires.
5.1 Awareness of climate change
As shown in Figure 7, most participants were aware of electricity conservation both in the home (93.8%, n=30) and
the workplace (90.6%, n=29), greenhouse gas emissions (90.6%, n=29) and climate change (87.5%, n=28). Some
participants were unaware of government (25%, n=8) or industry (21.9%, n=7) initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. A larger proportion of participants were unaware of the relationship between the price of electricity and
greenhouse gas emissions (40.6%, n=13).
12
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Figure 7. Awareness of climate change and related issues
5.2 Awareness of energy sources and technology
The majority of participants were aware of the range of energy sources and technologies. As shown in Figure 8,
the highest levels of awareness were for more conventional technologies including solar (96.9%, n=31) wind (93.8%,
n=30), oil (93.8%, n=30), natural gas (93.8%, n=30), nuclear (90.6%, n=29) and coal-fired power (90.6%, n=29).
Geothermal (hot rocks) (75%, n=24) and coal seam gas (65.6%, n=21) attracted the lowest levels of awareness.
Some participants were unaware of carbon capture and storage (CCS) (15.6%, n=5), wave/tidal (12.5%, n=4), hydroelectricity (9.4%, n=3) and biofuels (9.4%, n=3).
Figure 8. Awareness of energy sources and related technologies
13
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
5.3 Self-rated knowledge about climate change and related issues
Figure 9 indicates that participants tended to rate their level of knowledge as moderate. Pre- and post-workshop,
participants considered themselves most knowledgeable in the area of electricity conservation in the home. As
denoted by the asterisks, there was significant increase in self rated knowledge from pre- to post-workshop in the
areas of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, electricity conservation in the workplace, and the relationship
between the price of electricity and greenhouse gas emissions.
Note: 3 participants who did not attend the afternoon session of the workshop are excluded from this analysis.
*Paired t-test (p<0.05) identified differences between responses pre- and post- workshop were significant. Knowledge
was measured as (1) no knowledge, (4) moderate knowledge, (7) high knowledge.
Figure 9. Mean changes in knowledge of climate change and related issues (pre- vs. post-workshop)
5.4 Self-rated knowledge of energy sources and related technologies
Participants also rated their level of knowledge on energy sources and related technologies on a scale of 1 to 7,
where 1= no knowledge to 7= high knowledge. Participants generally rated their level of knowledge as moderate
(Figure 10). Pre- and post-workshop, participants considered themselves most knowledgeable on the topic of solar
energy. Similarly, there was a significant increase in self-rated knowledge from pre- to post-workshop in the areas
of wind, CCS, geothermal and solar energy. The largest increase in mean levels of knowledge was for CCS, which
increased from 3.93 (SD=1.59) to 5.52 (SD=1.01).
14
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Note: 3 participants who did not attend the afternoon session of the workshop are excluded from this analysis.
*Paired t-test (p<0.05) identified differences between responses pre- and post- workshop were significant. Knowledge
was measured as (1) no knowledge, (4) moderate knowledge, (7) high knowledge.
Figure 10. Mean changes in knowledge of energy sources and related technologies (pre- vs. post-workshop)
5.5 Actual knowledge of climate change, energy and related issues
In addition to self-rated knowledge, participants were assessed for their knowledge about climate change and related
issues, energy sources and technologies by their responses to seven factual statements that were either true or false
(see Appendix A).
More than half of the participants correctly identified the False statements relating to carbon capture and storage
(59.4%, n=19), climate change (62.5%, n=20), the greenhouse effect (84.4%, n=27), the cost of generating renewable
electricity (62.5%, n=20), and water usage (68.8%, n=22). One quarter (25%, n=8) of the participants correctly
identified the False statement regarding recycling, with about one-third (34.4%, n=11) answering ‘Don’t Know’ to
this statement. Almost one third (31.3% n=10) of the participants correctly identified the True statements relating
to embodied energy and carbon emissions, with 56.3% (n=18) and 46.9% (n=15) answering ‘Don’t Know’ to these
statements.
15
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Table 1. Frequency of participant responses to True and False statements
Is each of the following
statements true or false?
No response
True
False
Don’t Know
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Once the infrastructure is in place, carbon
capture and storage will reduce emissions from
coal-fired power at no additional costs, other
than maintenance
1
3.1
3
9.4
19
59.4
9
28.1
Climate change can completely be explained
through natural variability in climatic cycles
1
3.1
4
12.5
20
62.5
7
21.9
The greenhouse effect is caused by a hole in
the earth’s atmosphere
2
6.3
1
3.1
27
84.4
2
6.3
Generating electricity from renewable energy
costs less than generating electricity from coal
1
3.1
3
9.4
20
62.5
8
25.0
Embodied energy is the energy used to
produce and transport the goods and services
we buy
1
3.1
10
31.3
3
9.4
18
56.3
Australia uses less water per person than
any country in Europe (including industrial,
agricultural, and domestic water use)
1
3.1
1
3.1
22
68.8
8
25.0
About half of Australia's carbon emissions
come from electricity generation
1
3.1
10
31.3
6
18.8
15
46.9
Recycling paper, cardboard, metals, and glass
saves on materials, but does not help in saving
water, energy, or fuel
1
3.1
12
37.5
8
25.0
11
34.4
Note: Items 5 and 7 are True statements and the remaining items are False statements
5.6 Attitudes toward climate change and related issues
Participant attitudes were determined by their level of agreement with seven statements regarding climate change
and related issues. Participants agreed strongly with statements relating to the importance of climate change,
greenhouse gas emissions and electricity conservation, but tended to be unsure regarding increasing the price of
electricity to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Attitudes did not significantly change before, during or after the
workshop.
Figure 11. Mean changes in attitude toward climate change and related issues (pre-, process and post-workshop)
16
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
5.6.1 Climate change
The vast majority of participants began (87.5%, n=28) and ended (84.4%, n=27) the workshop agreeing that climate
change is an important issue for Australia. This statement was also strongly supported in the Digivote sessions (See
Appendix C). Participant feedback showed there was great concern about climate change among participants, with
particular reference to observed changes and potential impacts.
“In Australia the climate is actually, well - in Western Australia, it’s actually shifted. So our summer starts
later and our winter starts later – the whole thing starts later for us”.
“I’ve noticed in my lifetime that the seasons start later”.
“I suppose this is the one that sticks with me is the migration of certain species. They change where they
live, and I think that other species, animals, insects, are far more sensitive to climate change than we are,
and they do something about it. They move”.
5.6.2 Increased action on climate change
The four statements that suggested industry, government, and people in their home and workplace should be doing
more to reduce emissions each elicited more than 80% agreement, with more than one third of participants strongly
agreeing. Changes in mean levels of agreement were not significant.
Feedback from participants confirmed their desire for immediate action.
“I just want to see us moving forward and changing to live more sustainably, ‘cause it makes sense and I’m
hoping everybody’s wrong about that, but I don’t see the harm in living better even if we’re wrong”.
“…we’re being pushed in agriculture and horticulture to be sustainable; I think industry should be pushed
into the same”.
“The whole community is ready to do something but we need someone to show us how to do it”.
Participants also stressed the importance of stronger leadership and direction from government.
“…it’s a fairly minimal input that we can have as individuals and we need leadership, informed leadership”.
“Well, I believe the evidence is there, I believe the answers are there…What’s missing is the resolute and
confident leadership on the topic. As soon as a counter-argument comes up someone goes pear-shaped
and loses the leadership”.
5.6.3 Increasing the price of electricity
Of the seven statements used to measure attitudes to climate change and related issues (see Figure 11 above) there
was least agreement with ‘increasing the price of electricity’ as a method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, there was a slight increase in the mean level of agreement by the end of the workshop, rising from less
than half (43.8%, n=14) to over half (53.1%, n=17) of the participants, with 15.6% (n=5) strongly agreeing. The
Digivote responses of the whole group showed slightly more support than the average of individual responses.
Participant feedback reflects the range of opinions in relation to rising electricity prices.
“If you want to use a lot more electricity like leaving your lights on and well you know a lot of other ways you
can waste electricity you’ve got to pay more for it”.
“I love the idea of alternative – all those alternative technologies; solar, wind. But as someone struggling to
pay a mortgage, I’m really hesitant to see the price go sky-high to pay for these alternative technologies”.
“…from a political perspective, if you try and put up the price of electricity you’re going to get pushed back.
If you say to people, your house has to be electricity efficient, and if you do the job well, you can actually put
back into the grid and you can actually get some money back, then I think that’s more palatable to sell from
a political viewpoint”.
17
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
5.7 Attitudes towards energy sources and related technologies
Different energy sources elicited widely varying levels of support from participants (Figure 12). Similar to earlier
findings both in Australia and internationally (Ashworth et al, 2007; Curry et al 2007; Reiner et al., 2006; Sola et
al, 2007), participants were generally more supportive of renewable sources and less supportive or opposed to
non-renewable sources. Participants agreed most strongly with the use of solar energy and showed the least level
of support for the use of oil before, during and after the workshop. A substantial proportion of participants were
initially uncertain about many of the energy sources and related technologies with a rating of 4 (unsure) recorded
from at least 25% of participants.
Figure 12. Mean changes in attitudes toward energy sources and related technologies (pre-, process and postworkshop)
Note: 3 participants who did not attend the afternoon session of the workshop are excluded from this analysis. Attitude
was measured as (1) strongly disagree, (4) unsure, (7) strongly agree.
5.7.1 Solar, Wave/Tidal and Wind
The highest mean levels of support were for solar, wave/tidal and wind energy, eliciting a mean of moderate to
strong agreement. No more than 6.3% (n=2) of participants expressed any level of disagreement with these options.
Attitudes towards solar and wind became slightly more positive as a result of the workshop; while the number of
participants supportive of wave/tidal slightly decreased from a pre-workshop figure of 53.1% (n=17) strongly agreed,
to 43.8% (n=14) post-workshop. Although there were high levels of support for these technologies, during the small
group discussions participants shared concerns in relation to the efficiency, costs and infrastructure involved.
“…wind and solar probably go fairly well together, because they’re both – I mean the sun’s free, the wind is
free and you have the infrastructure to set it up. The other thing is it’s not constant”.
“Unfortunately, solar and wind can’t give you base load power. Can give you top up and it can give you
variable…”
“I’m probably going to disapprove here because I think the capital cost of these mini solar installations is
ridiculously high”.
18
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
“The only problem with wind, it isn’t - like a landscape that is – you see one or several you think, oh, they’re
marvellous things. Then you could imagine what it would be like if they were supplying 50% of our energy,
there would be so many…”
Figure 13. Opening (am) and closing (pm) Digivote results for support of solar energy
5.7.2 Geothermal
Geothermal elicited the next highest level of support after solar, wave/tidal and wind. Around two-thirds of
participants agreed with the use of geothermal: 65.5% (n=21) pre-workshop and 71.9% (n=23) post-workshop.
Initially participants were also somewhat unsure, however this decreased from 31.3% (n=10) pre-workshop to 15.6%
(n=5) post-workshop. Again these results were slightly different from the whole group Digivote responses as shown
in Figure 14 below.
Figure 14. Opening (am) and closing (pm) Digivote results for support of geothermal energy
Comments below reflect participant concerns and uncertainties.
“I think a lot of that, the rock - partly though, is more or less a nuclear process, isn’t it? It’s very slow
nuclear. I think that’s the ones that were out at - like in central Australia”.
“If you’re going to cool down what were hot rocks, what’s going to happen? Expansion and contraction?”
“But if you’re going to cool it down, what’s that going to do down deep down there in the gizzards of the
earth? Nobody knows”.
19
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
5.7.3 Natural gas
Of the non-renewable energy sources natural gas had the highest mean levels of support, ranging from unsure to
moderately supportive. At the beginning of the workshop over half of participants (53.2%, n=17) were in favour of
the use of natural gas, increasing to 62.5% (n=20) at the end of the workshop.
5.7.4 Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage
Of the twelve energy sources and related technologies, the greatest change in attitude was towards carbon capture
and storage. This technology also elicited the strongest levels of uncertainty. Pre-workshop almost half (43.8%,
n=14) of the participants were unsure about carbon capture and storage, decreasing to 15.6% (n=5) post-workshop.
Participants agreeing with the technology increased from 34.5% (n=11) to 56.2% (n=18) between pre- and postworkshop questionnaires.
Figure 15. Opening (am) and closing (pm) Digivote results for support of CCS.
A number of concerns about the risks of carbon capture and storage were expressed by participants during the
table discussions. Most of these were in relation to confidence in being able to store carbon dioxide for the long
term.
“…I mean I’m not saying if everything works out right there’s not going to be any problem I guess. But when
you get down to what people think and that’s your first thing. What if this damn stuff starts coming up or
something and you hear - I mean somebody mentioned that the lake in Africa where all these people died
because the CO2 came out of the lake and they all died. And the other things cows died. I mean I’m not
saying that’s going to happen. I don’t think it would”.
“Yeah that’s an immediate thing, if there’s enough that you’re going to sort of die in your sleep or
something. It’s even coming up slowly it’s all going to go back in the atmosphere again, the whole things a
waste of time”.
“It’s all right to test it, but what do you do when you find out something terrible has happened”.
“Then have a couple of – if you have an earthquake, he said, yeah, but what if there’s an earthquake – and
the whole lot comes up altogether. God, it’s ruined. And the other thing is, it’s a waste of a good resource”
Some participants indicated that carbon capture and storage shouldn’t be regarded as the only solution to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions particularly if there was an accident and what was stored escaped.
“…if it ends up it was a big waste of time and we’re back to square one and we haven’t done something
else we could have”.
“…it’s a temporary solution for a long-term problem. If the industry’s going to produce emissions, the carbon
dioxide as emissions, if CCS doesn’t happen, it’s just going to be released”.
20
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
5.7.5
Nuclear
There was a wide variance of opinion in relation to nuclear power; however, there was no significant shift in the
mean during the workshop. Participants opposed to nuclear decreased very slightly from 37.5% (n=12) at the start
of the workshop to 34.4% (n=11) at the end of the workshop. Based on the individual survey responses, the number
of participants in support of nuclear did not change, remaining at 43.7 % (n=14) pre- and post-workshop. However,
this is different from the results of the Digivote responses as shown in Figure 16 below. There was an increase in the
whole group support, with the mean changing from 2.74 at the opening vote to 4.19 at the end. Again, it is difficult
to hypothesise why this occurred given that Digivote is anonymous. The most significant change was evident among
those that strongly disagreed in the pre-questionnaire, with more support for the power source being demonstrated
in the post-questionnaire.
Figure 16. Opening (am) and closing (pm) Digivote responses for support of nuclear power in Australia
The range of views about nuclear technology are reflected in participant feedback.
“…nuclear cloud went over north Norway - that’s where my family came from. In the last three years, we’ve
had five of them die of cancer”.
“I’ve got a bit more faith than you – if it’s a modern nuclear technology, I wonder if that’s far safer and more
efficient”.
“They’re talking about now – apparently the older nuclear ones were only about 1% efficient to the energy
that was actually within the uranium. They’re talking about now, about recycling - keep recycling it and then
it won’t the problem of disposing of it”.
5.7.6 Coal and Oil
Coal and oil had the lowest mean levels of support out of the 12 energy sources and related technologies. At
the beginning of the workshop 43.7% (n=14) were in opposition and 28.1% (n=9) supported coal fired methods.
Attitudes shifted in favour of coal post-workshop, with 34.4% (n=11) in opposition and 43.7% (n=14) in support.
Similarly oil was opposed by 40.6% (n=13) and supported by 31.3% (n=10) of participants pre-workshop, and
changed to 28.1% (n=9) and 37.5% (n=12) respectively post-workshop. Participant comments described coal and oil
as easy energy options due to existing infrastructure and lower costs.
“It’s a really easy option. Coal and oil are a really easy option at the moment because the infrastructure is
in place…”
“But I think the problem for Australia is the actual cheap cost of coal. I mean, if we were somewhere else
where we didn’t have so much coal, we’d be jumping on the alternative options very quickly. But I don’t
know how we get over that”.
21
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
5.8 Energy technology preferences
Participants were asked at the beginning and end of the workshop to rank the 12 technologies in order of priority
if they were able to allocate public funds to their development and/or implementation, where 1= highest priority
through to 12= lowest priority. Therefore a low score represents a high priority for allocating public funds. In
general, participants accorded greater mean funding priority to renewable energy technologies (seeTable 2). The top
funding priorities pre-workshop were solar followed by wind, geothermal and wave/tidal. Post-workshop preferred
funding priorities changed to solar followed by wind, wave/tidal and carbon capture and storage. Coal-fired power
was the least preferred funding priority pre-workshop, and oil was the least preferred funding priority postworkshop. The workshop resulted in a significant increase in funding priority for carbon capture and storage.
Table 2. Changes in priority of the mean preferred energy technology (pre- vs. post-workshop)
Funding priority order1
Pre-workshop
Post-workshop
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Solar
2.04 (1.63)
2.52 (2.26)
Wind
3.89 (2.72)
3.67 (2.22)
Geothermal
4.81 (2.06)
5.74 (3.03)
Wave/tidal
4.96 (2.75)
4.96 (2.63)
Biofuels
6.37 (2.42)
7.37 (2.80)
Hydro-electric
6.44 (2.86)
7.37 (2.65)
Carbon Capture and Storage
6.85 (3.47)
5.30 (3.55)*
Natural Gas
7.38 (2.17)
6.65 (2.72)
Nuclear
7.44 (4.23)
7.30 (3.97)
Coal seam gas
8.70 (2.63)
8.56 (2.26)
Oil
9.00 (2.38)
9.27 (2.24)
Coal fired
9.54 (2.57)
8.73 (3.19)
Note: 3 participants who did not attend the afternoon session of the workshop are excluded from this analysis. *Paired
t-test (p<0.05) identified differences between responses pre- and post- workshop were significant. Energy source
preference priority measured from (1) highest priority to (12) lowest priority.
Figure 17. Changes in priority of the mean preferred energy technology (pre- vs. post-workshop)
22
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Solar energy had the highest ranked mean priority both pre-and post-workshop. The majority of participants ranked
solar energy in their top three funding priorities: 78.2% (n=25) pre-workshop and 56.4% (n=18) post-workshop.
Wind was the second highest funding priority both pre- and post-workshop and was included in the top three
funding priorities by 62.6% (n=20) of participants pre-workshop and 46.9% (n=15) post-workshop.
Geothermal had the third highest mean ranking pre-workshop then fell to fifth post-workshop. Wave/tidal was
ranked fourth pre-workshop and third post-workshop; however the actual mean score for funding priority remained
the same (see Table 1).
Biofuels and hydro-electric energy technologies had similar means for funding priority and both decreased in ranking
pre- to post-workshop. Biofuels ranked fifth highest mean priority pre-workshop and eighth highest post-workshop.
Hydro-electric shifted from sixth pre-workshop to equal eighth post-workshop.
Carbon capture and storage ranked seventh initially; and recorded the only significant mean shift in funding priority,
ranking fourth post-workshop. One fifth of participants (21.9%, n=7) ranked carbon capture and storage in their
top three funding priorities pre-workshop, while this increased to over a third (34.4%, n=11) of participants postworkshop.
Pre-workshop natural gas and nuclear technology were ranked eighth and ninth highest mean priorities respectively,
slightly increasing as funding priorities post workshop to be ranked sixth and seventh highest. Nuclear energy was
selected as the least preferred funding option by over a third of participants (34.4%, n=11) pre-workshop, decreasing
to approximately one in six participants (15.6%, n=5) post-workshop.
At the lower end of the funding spectrum coal fired energy was ranked lowest pre-workshop, with over half (59.4%,
n=19) of participants rating it in their bottom three funding priorities. Preference for coal fired energy slightly
increased post-workshop, with less than half (40.7%, n=13) including it in their bottom three priorities. Oil ranked
second last in funding priority pre-workshop, with support decreasing post-workshop, where it was ranked as the
least preferred funding option. Approximately one third of participants ranked coal seam gas in their bottom three
funding priorities: 31.3% (n=10) pre-workshop and 34.4% (n=11) post-workshop.
5.9 Willingness to pay more for electricity
Participants were surveyed on their willingness to pay more for household electricity if it reduced greenhouse gas
emissions in both the pre- and post-workshop questionnaires. On both occasions almost two thirds of participants
agreed they would be willing to pay more for electricity: 65.7% (n=21) agreed pre-workshop and 62.5% (n=20)
agreed post-workshop (Table 3).
Table 3. Willingness to pay more for electricity
Would you be willing to pay more
for your household electricity if it
reduced greenhouse gas emissions?
Pre-workshop
Post-workshop
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Yes
21
65.7
20
62.5
No
10
31.3
7
21.9
No response
1
3.1
5
15.6
Total
32
100.1*
32
100
*Does not equal 100% due to rounding error.
23
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Figure 18. Opening (am) and closing (pm) Digivote responses showing willingness to pay more for electricity
The amount these participants were willing to pay was highly variable (Table 4). Participants were most frequently
willing to pay up to $25 (about $2 per week) both pre- (42.9%, n=9) and post-workshop (35%, n=7).
Table 4. The extent of willingness to pay more for electricity
Pre-workshop
Post-workshop
If you answered yes to the question
above, please indicate how much
more you would be willing to pay.
Frequency
Valid percent
Frequency
Valid percent
I would pay less than $25 per quarter
1
4.8
3
15.0
I would pay up to $25 more per
quarter (about $2 per week)
9
42.9
7
35.0
I would pay up to $50 more per
quarter (about $4 per week)
2
9.5
3
15.0
I would pay up to $75 more per
quarter (about $6 per week)
2
9.5
1
5.0
I would pay up to $100 more per
quarter (about $8 per week)
1
4.8
1
5.0
I would pay up to $150 more per
quarter (about $12 per week)
2
9.5
1
5.0
I would pay more than $151
more per quarter
2
9.5
3
15.0
No response
2
9.5
1
5
Total
21
100
20
100
6 Intended behaviour as a result of the workshop
6.1 Energy related behaviour
Participants indicated their intentions for behavioural changes as a result of the workshop, with mean agreement to
all except one of the low environmental impact behaviours (Figure 19). These intentions were on average strongest
for using energy efficient light bulbs, considering energy efficiency ratings, conserving energy use in the home
and workplace, and recycling. There was less intention to install a solar hot water system or pay extra for ‘green’
electricity. There was also a high mean level of agreement to the proposition that current behaviour would be
continued (suggesting no change) as ‘I already practice most of the behaviours’. This reflects the results of the preworkshop questionnaire regarding current participant behaviours. Participant agreement both to continue current
behaviours and to change a diverse range of specific behaviours can be interpreted as an intention to increase the
extent or frequency of already practiced behaviours.
24
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
* This behaviour has a high environmental impact whereas the other behaviours have a low environmental impact.
Intentions measured as (1) strongly disagree, (4) unsure, (7) strongly agree.
Figure 19. Mean intended energy related behaviour as a result of the workshop
6.2 Information seeking and sharing
As a result of the workshop participants tended to agree that they would seek further information on the topic
from books and the internet and talk to their colleagues, friends and family about the workshop (Figure 20). There
were slightly lower levels of agreement in regards to speaking with other people from the workshop about the
information provided.
Intentions measured as (1) strongly disagree, (4) unsure, (7) strongly agree.
Figure 20. Mean intended information seeking and sharing behaviour as a result of the workshop
25
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
6.3 Further information
When asked which topics they would like more information about as a result of the workshop, participants were
most interested in carbon capture and storage and geothermal (hot rocks) energy, which were selected by 50%
(n=16) and 40.6% (n=13) of participants respectively. This is consistent with previous research, where participants
show greater interest in newer and emerging technologies tend to create a greater level of interest in participants
(Ashworth et al., 2006).
7 Trust in information sources
Participants were asked how much they trusted 16 nominated sources of climate change information in the preworkshop survey. Trust was measured on a scale of 1 = distrust a lot, 4= unsure and 7 = trust a lot. Overall,
levels of trust were moderate to low as shown in Figure 21 below. Participants accorded most trust to scientific
sources: academic articles (5.77, SD=1.19), the CSIRO (5.75, SD=0.89) and books (5.34, SD=1.14). Family and
friends were also seen to be reasonably trustworthy (4.76, SD=1.43). Least trusted sources were internet blog sites
(3.13, SD=1.16), newsletters or flyers from interest groups (3.5, SD=1.35), and television news and current affairs
programs (3.8, SD=1.58).
Figure 21. Mean trust in information sources
26
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Participant feedback further demonstrated trust in the CSIRO and scientists.
“…the Government’s got a three year outlook and scientists for the last hundreds of years have been
thought leaders and guiders in the society. I’m not seeing that so far today”.
“That’s why you need the CSIRO and people like that to stand up and say, guys; this is what has to be done”.
“…you’ve got to get it from a verifiable source. And that means it has to be something that’s sourced from
an academic source. I mean, you can go and listen to the television and they’ll tell you something that’s a
heap of rubbish.”
Some participants also thought there were vested interests involved in climate change research.
“I think we hit an important point on the head. I think a lot of these issues that we face are polluted with so
much misinformation; twisted information, and for want of a better way of putting it, hysterical information.
Let’s face it; it becomes just too difficult to know who’s actually telling the truth and who’s not. And I know
from my point of view, I don’t trust what I hear unless I actually see the data and I can then draw the
conclusions myself, because there’s too many vested interests of one kind or another influencing it, as far as
I’m concerned”.
“And researches have a vested interest too. Researchers have a vested interest in getting grants and
keeping their jobs and all those sorts of things”.
“Academics have to think about their funding too…And most of the time, they’re funded by industry, so go
figure”.
Others weren’t sure who to believe.
“…there’s so much misinformation. You don’t know who to believe, you don’t know what to take up. It
makes it very difficult”.
“I think I’m probably even more confused about all the information that’s available, because there’s people
saying it’s absolutely definitely happening, and then people saying that the science is questionable, and then
people saying that CO2’s a natural occurring gas so why is it considered a pollutant? So I’m even probably
more uncertain of what is it – what’s actually true and what’s not true, because there’s – everyone’s an
expert”.
8
Key messages from the process
Towards the end of the workshop, after discussion and deliberation had taken place, facilitators met to discuss the
issues that arose. These were summarised into key messages and themes which were summarised into a PowerPoint
presentation. These key messages and themes were then presented back to the workshop group for approval.
Participants were satisfied that these key messages were representative of their discussions and of the views of the
group as a whole. The following discussion outlines the key messages that emerged from this process and in each
section the relevant page from the PowerPoint summary has also been included for reference.
8.1 Climate change
Not surprisingly a key theme that arose was the issue of climate change itself. Discussion had focussed on recognising
that climate is naturally variable; but there was widespread agreement that much of what is happening is human
induced. However, one or two participants still remained a little sceptical of whether climate change was real. Many
felt they would like more information on the proposed impacts of climate change specific to Western Australia.
Discussion also noted that for many the whole concept was overwhelming, especially because the boundaries
seemed to be changing too fast for many to keep up. There was a request for more direction as to what individuals
should do and where they should start to make a difference. It was also felt that if a ‘bottom up’ approach to raising
awareness was undertaken it would eventually have an impact on industry and force it to be more proactive.
“I think there’s always been climate change. Climate is always changing. I’m a bit on the fence about global
warming and the human perspective. I think it probably is, I think, I agree it’s probably carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. I mean it’s a scientific fact that it will increase the warming. But whether there are other
offsets that will – natural things that would sort of negate that, I don’t know, but I think we should be - we
should take more precautions”.
27
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
“I suppose there’s two parts to climate change: one is the geological argument, which is it’s a cyclic thing;
the other question is – part of that is, are humans, by their activities, having an effect on the climate and
therefore accelerating of that process? And there’s no doubt that logically we’re getting warmer because
that occurs. Are we actually accelerating that? And how do we make sure what we do put into the
atmosphere is either taken up by the growth of trees or something like that, or mitigated in some other way,
to allow us to continue burning fuels, I guess?”
“I don’t believe in it. I believe in cyclic climate change. It’s happened before and it will happen again. Like it
did in the ‘60s and ‘70s…It’s the natural cycle, and at the moment it’s being pushed by the - very much by
the academics to get grants for research and different things. Like Henny Penny – ‘oh, the sky is falling’”.
“…my view of this thing is its more cyclical and it has been happening across the globe for centuries, or for
millions of years. It’s just a matter of timing where we are, in which part of the curl, we are in. Certainly, our
awareness and knowledge base, where we are, makes us more anxious about these things”.
8.2 Urgent action required
There was also much discussion about how quickly the changes in climate are happening. It was felt that regardless
of whether the changes were human induced or natural there was a need to respond to the issue. A precautionary
approach was seen to be essential; and that if such an approach was adopted it would lead to improved outcomes
regardless of the natural versus man made discussion. Some participants cited economic arguments, particularly the
belief that it is much cheaper to act earlier rather than later; while others discussed the need to act now.
28
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
8.3 Leadership
A key theme that followed the need for urgent action was the issue of leadership. All of the tables discussed the
need for strong informed leadership to ensure that the right actions were defined. Many stated that most people
were ready to act, but really wanted some leadership to guide them in the right direction. The role of CSIRO was
also discussed in relation to leadership with some participants suggesting that they would like to see CSIRO take
a much stronger leadership position – particularly using its scientific output to inform the direction that should be
taken. It was suggested that CSIRO could do this because it was a peak body in Australia that is well trusted by the
general public.
8.4 Policy
Discussions around the need for policy on climate included a price on carbon. Most participants were of the opinion
that putting a price on carbon was one of the only ways to bring about the necessary mechanism to make people
act accordingly. However, there was a question about whether putting a price on carbon in Australia would make a
significant reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions because of the small percentage of emissions that Australia
actually contributes globally.
“…there’s got to be a price on carbon. Not a tax a price”.
“The carbon price is going to give people incentives… it’s working in positive ways as opposed to a carbon
tax which is negative and has everybody sitting back and saying, well it’s not my problem”.
“The general population supports a carbon price and I think it’s about a signal to the rest of the world and
equity and all that sort of stuff…”
Other concerns were raised around the role of market mechanisms and whether government subsidies for
energy technologies were creating a false economy where the real costs of technologies were not being accurately
reflected. New policy initiatives thought to be essential included policies to improve building standards. This
included introducing policies for improved energy efficiency. However, there was also recognition that there are
many competing priorities and that it is difficult to make the tough choices in terms of policy priorities.
“…in Europe, particularly in Germany government policy has a big influence on solar. Every roof has a
solar panel because government policy actually encourages that type of behaviour and activity. And so
governments can play a part, particularly solar, grey water reuse - you know they do that all the time in
Europe and we don’t even think about it here”.
“…those incentives…like grey water and all of those things should be backed by the government because
the amount it would cost them to pay all these subsidies is nowhere as much as that would save all the
other liabilities”.
“…you can actually mandate building standards to drive a certain behaviour. But builders oppose it
because it actually increases the cost of house”.
29
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
8.5 Trust
Trust was also raised as being an important issue. This ranged from transparency in government strategic planning
to the need for trusted advisers to government. It was suggested that a neutral body should be made responsible
for ensuring that any industry changes that were needed to be made were monitored impartially to make certain
that industry met all requirements that were set. Participants also discussed the need for a neutral body to be
responsible for disseminating information that was specifically formulated in easy to understand language. Many were
sceptical as to whether this level of neutrality could be achieved because they recognised that for every technology
there is a group who has a vested interest in that specific technology.
30
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
8.6 Role of the individual
Many of the participants were keen to make a difference themselves but were uncertain of what actions they should
take. This explains the reason they were looking for leadership to guide the actions they might take. Participants
recognised that they had the power to make a difference and even if it started with small steps the impact could
be cumulative if harnessed in the correct way. It was also recognised that such a bottom up approach, if mobilised
correctly, could positively influence larger industries to take action to reduce their emissions as well.
8.7 Culture and lifestyle
Connected to the role of the individual was recognition that as citizens of a developed country most Australians
expect a certain quality of life that they may be reluctant to change. There was some discussion around the
difference between the developed world and developing countries and what Australia’s obligation is to help them.
This led to consideration of the ethical issues in relation to intergenerational equity and what changes we might have
to make to ensure that we could create some form of equity based on our actions.
“There’s a lot of debate over why introduce the carbon tax or price on carbon; India and China aren’t going
to have the same thing implemented in their countries, and they’re polluting… and increasing their pollution
by huge amounts versus what Australians kind of do”.
“Because their population is so large, they can actually get taxes to do actually do something about it and
I’m being honest. Our country is so small that we can’t actually do very much about a huge mining industry
up north et cetera that’s actually producing more. We can do small things with small bits but we can’t do a
whole lot with lots of things”.
31
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
8.8 Information and awareness
A need for information was also seen to be critical to create the momentum for change. However, there
was recognition that many individuals suffer from information overload. It was discussed that attention would
need to be paid to a variety of communication streams and that the framing of the information would be
critical. The Media was also discussed as having an important role in presenting the facts, although participants
recognised that it is difficult to sort between fact and fiction without access to accurate information.
8.9 Technology concerns
Finally, there were a number of concerns raised about carbon capture and storage, particularly in relation
to the Collie Hub project. Most of these related to issues around stability of the storage and the impact on
groundwater supplies if it leaked. The main issues raised are summarised on the following two slides.
32
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
There were also some questions around whether there was potential to use carbon dioxide as a resource of its
own.
“There’s lots of ways you can use like CO2’s used in refrigeration units and heat pumps like eco kit to get rid
of CFC’s. There’s lots of people, millions of people have spent trillions of dollars researching where they can
put it but no one’s really put a decisive plan together yet”.
“If someone comes to you and says I can give you a pure 99.99% a pure product would you want to bury
it?”
“If there was some use for that product. You’d have to use that product. Can you use it?”
9 Key questions
Participants were encouraged to record any additional questions that arose during the presentation and discussion
sessions. These questions were put ‘on notice’ and following the workshop expert responses were provided. The
questions and responses are listed below:
What is the proposed footprint of infrastructure including pipeline?
This has yet to be determined. The intention for the CO2 pipelines is to utilise existing pipeline easements where
possible. There are some areas where this may not be possible such as the Northern side of Collie and some
of the injection sites. The footprint at the injection site is not large. For instance the Otway Basin well fi ts easily
onto a standard quarter acre block. The same would apply to a single compressor station located within the
injection area.
If the CCS project is approved and infrastructure built – what happens if subsequently the sequestered gases
start escaping before 1000 years?
Any potential leakage from a project will be the subject of detailed risk assessment procedures, well before any
injection occurs. Project proponents can determine where leakage is occurring through monitoring activities.
There are established procedures in the oil & gas industry for dealing with leaks, such as plugging leaking wells or
reducing reservoir pressure.
If cost includes capital cost, the rate will be dependent upon the period over which you write off this capital cost?
Normal financial criteria are expected to apply. The major inputs into the financial analysis are:
• Capital costs for capture, transport and injection;
• Operating costs for capture, transport and injection;
• Cost of funds.
Write off provisions will be determined by taxation and auditing standards (which may vary from project to
project).
33
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Transportation of CO2 to suitable site – Rail, road, pipeline?
This project is based on CO2 being transported by pipeline. Road transport was one of the options briefly
considered for the CO2 trial period but after early analysis was dismissed due to the expense and the lack of
suitable road haulage vehicles within the State. Rail was not considered due to the congestion on the current line
and the need to bring a separate spur to the site.
What is the cost per tonne of carbon that is captured and stored?
Costs are project specific and depend on a number of factors including the type of capture technology used, the
length of the pipeline, the conditions of the reservoirs, as well as the economic conditions at the time the project
is implemented. There is no one single number that can be used to described all projects. CO2CRC research
shows that CCS costs can range from A$75 to over A$100 per tonne CO2 avoided using current technology.
However, costs will be reduced as CCS technology improves, with estimates of over A$20 per tonne CO2
avoided.
This is a figure that will be progressively developed over the next four years. Our current estimate for the Collie
Hub Project is:
•
$50 Carbon Capture;
•
$10 Carbon transport;
•
$10 Carbon storage.
Can the captured carbon become a future resource?
CO2 is already used in the beverage and pharmaceutical industries. Future uses of CO2 may include feedstock for
algae producing biofuels or building materials from mineralisation. However, none of these industries are capable
of dealing in the short-medium term with the large volumes of CO2 emissions that need to be kept out of the
atmosphere.
Is there a recycling process that can use CO2?
See above. Research is underway to use CO2 in new ways but it is at an early stage.
When non-food grade CO2 is eventually pumped in to the ground, what contaminants will affect a) groundwater;
b) surface farming; and c) anything else (e.g. fauna)?
CCS proponents will have to satisfy regulators that CO2 will not affect groundwater, farming or fauna. Any other
substance injected with the CO2 will be regulated to the same extent.
Are there adverse effects of CO2 storage for the environment, farming and air quality?
See above.
What happens to potable water (underground) near or adjacent to carbon drilling operations and particularly
near the carbon storage areas? In other words, will groundwater be affected or become unavailable?
The geology of the area is carefully assessed so that there is effective separation between any potable source
and the storage reservoir. The CO2 is modeled to ensure there will be no movement into potable aquifers.
Furthermore, CO2 storage is at depths of more than 800 metres, and often 2 kilometres or more. This is usually
far deeper than potable water sources.
What are the likely timeframes for the Collie Hub Project?
The key decision points following the 2011 seismic and stratigraphic data acquisition are:
• December 2011:
Detailed geophysical works (more seismic and additional data wells);
• December 2012:
Progress to CO2 trial;
• September 2014:
Progress to commercial operations.
A final decision on the project may not be made until late in 2015.
Has any drilling taken place yet?
There has been no drilling within the area of interest. Many years ago a series of water bores were drilled to a
depth of 800 metres to the north and south of the area.
34
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
What happens if CO2 leakage occurs?
It is unlikely large amounts of CO2 would escape in the case of a breach. In most cases escaped CO2 will
either form a lump of dry ice adjacent to the pipe or disperse very quickly and be rapidly diluted in the
atmosphere. As CO2 is a natural part of the composition of the air it is very unlikely there would be any
lasting effects.
How similar or different is naturally occurring CO2 and the CO2 that is injected into storage?
CO2 from different sources can be differentiated by their isotopic signature. Further information can be
found by following this link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-knowthat-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
CCS project proponents can also use very small amounts of tracer gases to ‘label’ the CO2 for monitoring
purposes.
Where will the different aspects of the Collie Hub project be located?
Capture and compression will be based at the emitting facility. Transport will be by pipeline and it is
expected that current easements will be utilised. Storage location will be determined at some stage in the
future following extensive analysis of the surrounding geology.
I did not notice anyone I knew from within the “target” area. Was anyone from that area invited to attend the
workshop? If not, why not?
Invitations were sent to Councils, business organisations, local Members of Parliament and community
groups. The Forum was also advertised in the South Western Times and the Harvey Waroona Reporter.
In addition there was also some general media coverage including interviews on the ABC local radio. It is
too early to identify individuals within the “target” area as this is still a very broad description.
“Australian Emissions” show 5% from industrial processes. I had understood that industry uses much more power
than domestic – Is industry included in “Stationary Energy” (Australian Emissions Slide – Presentation Part 1)?
Industry’s use of electricity and natural gas is captured in the stationary energy component.
It is true that industry uses roughly half of all electricity generated. The residential and commercial sectors
consume the remainder in roughly equivalent proportions.
Environmental issues with Wind Power? Is it only some bird species? Can they not just relocate themselves?
A report written some years ago by Ian Smales and Mark Venosta for the Department of Environment
and Heritage investigated the risk level of collision at wind farms in Gippsland, Victoria, to select species
listed under the ‘Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act’. They concluded “Collisions
with wind turbines pose little risk to the majority of the thirty-four species evaluated here”. The reference
available at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/wind-farm-bird-risk-gippslandbirds.pdf
provides a useful list of additional references.
How extensive are offshore wind farms?
They are still at the development stage but several are being developed in Europe, particularly the UK
and Germany.
Biomass – how is steam created, what is burnt?
The simplest thing to do with biomass is to just burn it but this is inefficient and there is little opportunity
to bury the associated CO2 or carbon. It’s also possible to create either a liquid or a gaseous fuel from
biomass that can be transported and then burned for a great many applications not just steam! There
are many forms of biomass and many processes for turning it into fuel. The kinds of processes involved
may be biochemical, chemical or thermal e.g. fermentation to turn starch and sugar into ethanol; or
transesterification to turn oils and fats into bio-diesel. Or enzymes can be used to break down wood and
plant material into gaseous or liquid fuel; or the biomass can be burned in a reduced oxygen atmosphere
so that a gas rich in hydrogen and carbon monoxide is produced (Syngas). Syngas can then be used by
itself or further processed to produce liquid fuel or hydrogen for fuel. One of the useful features of these
processes is that they provide fuels that have a reduced amount of carbon and provide a concentrated
stream of CO2 or solid carbon that can be collected and sequestered (buried).
35
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Why the spike on mean global temperatures (Slide 6 Presentation Part 1)?
The temperature data record is inevitably noisy particularly on a small time scale and particularly if
you just look at one data record. It’s interesting to look at a number of separate records and then
you can see how much noise is involved, but you will also see a fast rise in recent decades! It’s both
the speed and the amount of rise that are important. I’ve attached a slide from the IPCC showing
a number of these records and you can then see what I mean! A warning! The left hand side of the
graph has been developed using other indicators of temperature rather than precision thermometers
and it stretches back hundreds of years before thermometers were invented. In other words the
further back in time you go the less reliable the data is. The most reliable record is the black line
which has been produced in recent times using modern thermometers.
This picture is from the IPPC report IPCC WG1 AR4 Final Report “The Physical Science Basis Technical Summary” (February, 2007)
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf accessed [2007, May.17]
Have we (Government) got a strategy for ensuring we have enough resources (e.g. coal) for the future i.e. not
exporting all our resources?
The State Government has just released the Energy2031: Strategic Energy Initiative Directions Paper
that includes recommendations on future energy security.
If Australia actions changes to combat increased energy demands, then what constraints can be made on
developing countries to keep the emissions under control?
It’s worth remembering that every person in the developing world uses 1/5th to 1/10th as much
energy as a person in the developed world. It’s often possible for a person in the developed world to
reduce their energy consumption by half or more with no reduction in well being. But imagine how
hard it would be for a developing world person to reduce their energy consumption by half to 1/10th
or 1/20th of what we use! Have a look at the UNDP graph below and you will see what I mean. One
important issue is the world’s growing population. The UN have done some interesting analyses
that suggest improving well being and security in the developing world will eventually (mid century)
stabilize population growth.
36
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
As WA is a larger area with greater distances to cover; larger machinery used; a lot of energy is used
for production of goods largely for export especially mining and farming. Therefore a graph showing
energy consumption per capita would be more valid.
Australia’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions per capita are high relative to the
rest of the world. This reflects our high use of fossil fuels, lifestyle factors and large energy intensive
minerals industry. Whilst most of these mineral products are exported they become part of our
national per capita emission profile. As Western Australia has a disproportionately high amount of
Australia minerals industry located within it, WA emissions and energy per capita would be even
higher.
Geothermal energy – Concerned about geological factors regarding ground stability and interfering with nature.
It is true that the rock fracturing processes involved with extraction of deep geothermal hot rock
resources can lead to enhanced geological instability in the local region.
What can you do – pollution created by used globes as against savings, energy/pollution used/created to make
new cars as against maintaining “old steel”?
Recycling is the answer and cars are a good example where a high level of recycling is carried out.
These days it takes roughly ten times as much energy to use a car during its lifetime as it takes to build
a car. If you have a large old gas guzzler of a car and it only carries about one or two people then you
could try trading it to someone who will on average carry three or four people (It’s not easy to find
such people though!). If it’s older than 10 years and you can’t sell it to someone who will use it to
capacity, it may even be worth scrapping in order to reduce GHG production.
Regarding used light bulbs I can only sympathise. It’s not even appropriate to recycle them in your
waste glass bin as a light bulb can easily ruin a tonne or two of recycled bottle glass! Perhaps we
should lobby for recycling facilities for light bulbs especially fluorescent or compact fluorescent bulbs
that contain mercury.
Has there been any speculation on harnessing the power in an – electrical storm or a cyclonic storm?
Nicola Tesla from Serbia was a pioneer of the physics of electricity and radio wave theory. He also
speculated and experimented with using atmospheric electric fields to generate power. His life is
fascinating and well worth reading. In more recent times Dr John Lowke has speculated about the
possibility of creating and harnessing power from artificial cyclones.
There is no lack of alternative sources of energy but it’s well worth checking the financial viability of
some of the more obscure techniques. Despite his genius Tesla died a very poor man!
37
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Why is this the first seminar outside of Perth?
Previously the CSIRO Science into Society Group has conducted workshops in Australian capital
cities including Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth as part of research into the Australian
public’s perceptions of low emission energy technologies. The workshop in Harvey was related to the
Collie Hub project and therefore was held in the South West region.
10 Evaluation of workshop
10.1 Workshop activities and features
Participants were asked a number of questions to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop. Participants tended
to agree that their understanding was improved by the activities undertaken as shown in the table below.
Table 5. Ways participant understanding was improved
Was your understanding improved through the following?
1=Strongly Disagree to 7=Strongly Agree
Mean
SD
The presentations
5.78
1.05
Being able to ask questions
5.85
0.91
The discussions
5.70
1.10
All of the information and activities
5.93
1.11
Similarly participants were asked to evaluate workshop features. All nominated features of the workshop were rated
favourably by participants as shown in Table 5 below.
Table 6. Evaluation of workshop features
Mean
SD
The venue was suitable
6.11
0.80
I will read the written information provided
6.30
0.87
The workshop was informative
6.15
1.10
The facilitator of the workshop was easy to understand
6.33
1.07
The length of the workshop was appropriate
5.48
1.55
The food provided was excellent
6.35
0.75
The activities were enjoyable
5.88
0.82
1=Strongly Disagree to 7=Strongly Agree
10.2 Trust
Participants were asked a number of questions in relation to how much they trusted the experts and the information
provided on a scale of 1= not at all through to 7= trust a lot. In response to the question “To what extent do you trust
the information provided in the workshop?” the mean response during the workshop was 5.16 (SD=1.03) and at the
end of the workshop it had significantly increased to 5.60 (SD=0.76). Similarly respondents indicated that they trusted
both the experts that presented and perceived that the experts had high levels of competence and knowledge.
38
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
10.3 Workshop purpose
Participants were also asked to nominate the top three options that they felt represented the main purpose of the
workshop. The majority of participants chose inform (56.3%, n=18), engage (15.6%, n=15) and access my opinions
(n=10) as the main purpose. A small number felt that the purpose was to convince (n=3) or influence (n=5) and in the
open ended responses there was one respondent who felt the day was heavily weighted by industry and the second
open ended response was that the main purpose was to listen.
Other
purposes
What was the
purpose of today’s
workshop?
Convince
Engage
Influence
Consult
Inform
Access my
opinions
• Heavily
weighted
by industry
• Listen
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
3
9.4
15
46.9
5
15.6
7
21.9
18
56.3
10
31.3
2
6.2
39
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
References
Ashworth, P., Pisarski, A. & Littleboy, A. (2006). Social and Economic Integration Report: Understanding and
Incorporating Stakeholder Perspectives to Low Emission Technologies in Queensland. Final Report, November 2005.
CLET: Pullenvale.
Ashworth, P., Reiner, D., Gardner, J. & Littleboy, A. (2007). Kyoto or non Kyoto People or Politics: Results of recent public
opinion surveys on energy and climate change. Greenhouse 2007, Sydney, October 1 – 5.
Brandon, G. & Lewis, A. (1999). Reducing household energy consumption: A qualitative and quantitative field study.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 19(1): 75-85.
Curry.T.E., Ansolabehere.S., & Herzog.H. (2007). A Survey of Public Attitudes Toward Climate Change and Climate
Change Mitigation Technologies in the United States: Analyses of 2006 Results. Laboratory for Energy and the
Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA.
Department of Resources Energy and Tourism (2010). Clean Energy Initiative:Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships
Program. Retrieved from http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/ energy%20programs/cei/ccsfp/Pages/default.aspx
Desbarats, J., Upham P., Riesch, H., Reiner, D. Brunsting, S., De best Waldhober, M., Duetschke E., Oltra, C., Sala,
R. & McLachlan, C. (2010). Review of the Public Participation Practices for CCS and Non-CCS Projects in Europe. IEEP.
Retrieved from http://www.communicationnearco2.eu/fileadmin/communicationnearco2/ user/docs/Review_of_the_
public_participation_practices.pdf
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., & Jones, R.E. (2000). Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological
Paradigm: A Revised NEP. Social Journal of Social Issue, 56:3 425-442
Reiner, D., Curry, T.E., de Figueiredo, M., Herzog, H., Ansolabehere, S., Itaoka, K., Akai, M., Johnsson, F., &
Odenberger, M. (2006). An international comparison of public attitudes towards carbon capture and storage technologies.
GHGT-8, 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Trondheim, Norway. June 18 –
22, 2006.
Sola, R., Oltra, C., & Sala, R. (2007). Public perception of energy policy and climate change in Spain CIEMAT: Social
Research Technical Unit
40
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
APPENDIX A
Pre-Workshop, process and post-workshop questionnaires
PRE-WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire will assess some of your perspectives toward climate change and energy. The
responses you provide form part of a larger research project into the Australian public’s perspectives on
these issues. This questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes of your time.
Your participation is greatly appreciated.
SECTION 1: IDENTITY CODE
To help us analyse your responses, we need to be able to link your responses to other questionnaires
you may complete for us later on. To do this, while keeping your responses anonymous, we will ask
you to form an anonymous identity code and record your table number.
Please form an identity code by following these instructions: In the space below list the first two
letters of your mother’s or guardian’s first name (e.g. Mary becomes MA) followed by the date and
month of your birthday (e.g. if you were born on the 2nd April you would write 0204). So this example
ID Code becomes MA0204.
PLEASE PRINT YOUR ID CODE HERE: ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
PLEASE PRINT YOUR TABLE NUMBER HERE: _____
SECTION 2: BELIEFS & VALUES
This section is designed to measure the beliefs and values you hold in relation to the environment and
society.
QUESTION 1: BELIEFS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT
Listed below are statements about the relationship between humans and the environment. For each
one, please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
How strongly do you agree with the following?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
We are approaching the limit of the number of people the
earth can support
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Humans have the right to modify the natural environment
to suit their needs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
When humans interfere with nature it often produces
disastrous consequences
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Human ingenuity will make sure that we do NOT make
the earth unliveable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Humans are severely abusing the environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn
how to develop them
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the
impacts of modern industrial nations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Despite all our special abilities humans are still subject to
the laws of nature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
41
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been
greatly exaggerated
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and
resources
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature
works to be able to control it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
If things continue on their present course, we will soon
experience a major ecological catastrophe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SECTION 3: AWARENESS & KNOWLEDGE
This section is designed to measure your awareness and knowledge of climate change, energy sources
and related technologies, and other related issues.
QUESTION 2: AWARENESS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND RELATED ISSUES
Please circle “yes” or “no” to indicate whether you are aware of the following topics:
Climate change
YES
NO
Greenhouse gas emissions
YES
NO
Government initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
YES
NO
Electricity conservation in the home
YES
NO
Industry initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
YES
NO
Electricity conservation in the workplace
YES
NO
The relationship between the price of electricity and greenhouse gas emissions
YES
NO
QUESTION 3: AWARENESS OF ENERGY SOURCES AND RELATED
TECHNOLOGIES
Please circle “yes” or “no” to indicate whether you are aware of the following energy sources/technologies:
Wind
YES
NO
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
YES
NO
Nuclear
YES
NO
Hydro-electric
YES
NO
Coal fired (traditional/current methods)
YES
NO
Natural Gas
YES
NO
Geothermal (hot rocks)
YES
NO
Solar
YES
NO
Biofuels
YES
NO
Oil
YES
NO
Wave/tidal
YES
NO
Coal seam gas
YES
NO
42
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What doAPPENDIX
the locals think?
QUESTION 4: KNOWLEDGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND RELATED ISSUES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your knowledge of the
following topics.
How would you rate your knowledge
of the following?
No
knowledge
Climate change
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Government initiatives to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Electricity conservation in the home
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Industry initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Electricity conservation in the workplace
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The relationship between the price of
electricity and greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Moderate
knowledge
High
knowledge
QUESTION 5: KNOWLEDGE OF ENERGY SOURCES AND RELATED
TECHNOLOGIES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your knowledge of the
following topics.
How would you rate your knowledge
of the following energy sources/
technologies?
No
knowledge
Wind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nuclear
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Hydro-electric
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coal (traditional/current)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Natural Gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Geothermal (hot rocks)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Solar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Biofuels
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Oil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Wave/tidal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coal seam gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Moderate
knowledge
High
knowledge
43
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
QUESTION 6: KNOWLEDGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, ENERGY SOURCES AND
RELATED TECHNOLOGIES
Listed below are some statements about energy and the environment. Please indicate whether you
think each statement is true or false.
Is each of the following statements true or false?
Once the infrastructure is in place, carbon capture and storage will
reduce emissions from coal-fired power at no additional costs, other
than maintenance
True
False
Don’t know
Climate change can completely be explained through natural variability
in climatic cycles
True
False
Don’t know
The greenhouse effect is caused by a hole in the earth’s atmosphere
True
False
Don’t know
Generating electricity from renewable energy costs less than
generating electricity from coal
True
False
Don’t know
Embodied energy is the energy used to produce and transport the
goods and services we buy
True
False
Don’t know
Australia uses less water per person than any country in Europe
(including industrial, agricultural, and domestic water use)
True
False
Don’t know
About half of Australia's carbon emissions come from electricity
generation
True
False
Don’t know
Recycling paper, cardboard, metals, and glass saves on materials, but
does not help in saving water, energy, or fuel
True
False
Don’t know
SECTION 4: ATTITUDES
This section is designed to measure your opinions toward climate change, energy sources and related
technologies and other related issues.
QUESTION 7: ATTITUDES TOWARD CLIMATE CHANGE AND RELATED ISSUES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
How strongly do you agree with the following?
Climate change is an important issue for Australia
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The production of electricity is a major contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Industry should be doing more to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
People should be doing more to promote electricity
conservation in the home
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Government should be doing more to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
People should be doing more to promote electricity
conservation in the workplace
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Increasing the price of electricity to help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
44
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What doAPPENDIX
the locals think?
QUESTION 8: ATTITUDES TOWARD ENERGY SOURCES AND RELATED
TECHNOLOGIES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
How strongly do you agree with the
use of the following energy sources/
technologies?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
Wind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nuclear
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Hydro-electric
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coal (traditional/current methods)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Natural Gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Geothermal (hot rocks)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Solar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Biofuels
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Oil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Wave/tidal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coal seam gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
QUESTION 9: PRIORITY RANKING OF ENERGY SOURCES AND RELATED
TECHNOLOGIES
Please rank the following energy sources and related technologies in the priority order that you would
use to allocate public funds toward their development and implementation. Your priority order should
be written next to the energy sources below, in the order of 1 (one) for the highest priority, through
to 12 (twelve) for the lowest priority. Note you should use each number between 1 and 12 only once.
Energy sources and related technologies
FUNDING PRIORITY ORDER
Wind
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Nuclear
Hydro-electric
Coal (traditional/current methods)
Natural Gas
Geothermal (hot rocks)
Solar
Biofuels
Oil
Wave/tidal
Coal seam gas
45
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
SECTION 5: INTENDED BEHAVIOUR
This section is designed to measure various aspects of your intentions.
QUESTION 10: WILLINGNESS TO PAY MORE FOR ELECTRICITY
Would you be willing to pay more for your household electricity if it reduced greenhouse gas
emissions? Please tick “no” or “yes” to indicate your opinion:
Would you be interested in attending a community workshop to hear more about CCS?
NO (Go to Question 11)
YES (Continue below)
If you answered yes, which of the following best describes how much more you would be willing to pay for
your household electricity if it reduced greenhouse gas emissions? (Please tick only one box.)
I would pay less than $25 per quarter.
Please specify the amount more per quarter in dollars: $______ .
I would pay up to $25 more per quarter (about $2 per week)
I would pay up to $50 more per quarter (about $4 per week)
I would pay up to $75 more per quarter (about $6 per week)
I would pay up to $100 more per quarter (about $8 per week)
I would pay up to $150 more per quarter (about $12 per week)
I would pay more than $151 more per quarter.
Please specify the amount more per quarter in dollars: $_____ .
SECTION 6: CURRENT BEHAVIOUR
This section is designed to measure various aspects of your current behaviour.
QUESTION 11: BEHAVIOURS
Listed below are some specific behaviours that relate to the environment. Please circle “yes” or “no”
to indicate whether you do each of the following:
Please circle “yes” or “no” for each statement below:
I pay extra for ‘green’ electricity
YES
NO
I recycle my garbage (e.g. cans, bottles, newspapers)
YES
NO
I consider energy efficiency ratings when purchasing white goods
YES
NO
I use plastic bags when shopping
YES
NO
I have a solar hot water system in my home
YES
NO
I use energy efficient light bulbs
YES
NO
I conserve my use of electricity in the home
YES
NO
I conserve my use of electricity in the workplace
YES
NO
46
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What doAPPENDIX
the locals think?
SECTION 7: INFORMATION ACCESS
This section is designed to identify the information sources you access.
QUESTION 12: TRUST IN INFORMATION SOURCES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches how much trust you
hold in information or news from the following sources.
How much do you trust the following
information sources?
Distrust
a lot
Unsure
(4)
Trust
a lot
Family and friends
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Internet blogsites
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Internet sites
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Television news and current affairs programs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Radio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Newspapers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Magazines
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Newsletters or flyers from interest groups
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Environmental organisations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Books
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Academic articles
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
My local council
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Government correspondence e.g. mail outs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The CSIRO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Doctors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Industry
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SECTION 8: DEMOGRAPHICS
These final questions are designed to help us summarise the types of people who respond to this
survey.
QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR HOUSEHOLD
QUESTION 13: HOUSEHOLD SIZE
How many people (including yourself) live in your household? ___________
QUESTION 14: HOUSEHOLD TYPE
Group household
Couple with no children
Single person household
Couple with children
One parent with children
Other family (e.g. extended family household)
47
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
QUESTION 15: HOUSEHOLD INCOME
What is your household’s total income per year (before tax)? (Please tick one only.)
Less than $10 000
$50 000 - $59 999
$100 000 - $124 999
$10 000 - $19 999
$60 000 - $69 999
$125 000 - $149 999
$20 000 - $29 999
$70 000 - $79 999
$150 000 - $199 999
$30 000 - $39 999
$80 000 - $89 999
$200 000 - $249 999
$40 000 - $49 999
$90 000 - $99 999
$250 000 or more
QUESTION 16: LOCATION
What is the postcode of your home address?
QUESTION 17: CURRENT ENERGY USAGE
How much was your last electricity bill? $
How often do you pay your electricity bill? (Please tick one only.)
Monthly
Half-yearly
Quarterly
Annually
Other (please specify)
QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU
QUESTION 18: AGE
What is your age (in years)? ___________________________________
QUESTION 19: SEX
What is your sex? (Please tick one only.)
Male
Female
QUESTION 20: EDUCATION
What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Please tick one only.)
Primary School
Trade certificate/apprenticeship
Year 9 or below
Diploma
Year 10 or equivalent
Bachelor/honours degree
Year 11 or equivalent
Postgraduate degree
Year 12 or equivalent
48
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What doAPPENDIX
the locals think?
QUESTION 21: EMPLOYMENT
Which term below best describes you? (Please tick one only.)
Employed full time
Retired/pension recipient
Employed part time or casual
Home duties
Self employed
Full time student
Unemployed
Part time student
QUESTION 22: OCCUPATION
If you are currently in paid employment, which term below best describes you? (Please tick one only.)
Manager
Sales worker
Professional
Machinery operator/driver
Technician/trade worker
Labourer
Community/personal service worker
Agricultural/landowner
Clerical/administrative worker
Not in paid employment
Other (please specify)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY
49
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire will assess some of your perspectives toward the workshop and the groups of people
you are working in. The responses you provide form part of a larger research project into the Australian
public’s perspectives on these issues and help us to evaluate the effectiveness of the process. This
questionnaire should take approximately 10 minutes of your time.
Your participation is greatly appreciated.
SECTION 1: IDENTITY CODE
To help us analyse your responses, we need to be able to link your responses to the questionnaire
you completed earlier. To do this, on the earlier questionnaire we asked you to form an anonymous
identify code, by listing the first two letters of your mother’s or guardian’s first name (e.g. Mary
becomes MA) followed by the date and month of your birthday (e.g. if you were born on the 2nd
April you would write 0204). For this example, the ID Code becomes MA0204. Below, please write
in your own identity code (it should be the same as the code you wrote on the Pre-Workshop
Questionnaire).
PLEASE PRINT YOUR ID CODE HERE: ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
PLEASE PRINT YOUR TABLE NUMBER HERE: _____
SECTION 2: DEMOGRAPHICS
To ensure our records are correct we would like you to enter some information about yourself.
QUESTION 1: AGE
What is your age (in years)?
QUESTION 2: GENDER
What is your gender? (Please tick one only.)
Male
Female
QUESTION 3: LOCATION
What is the postcode of your home address? _________
50
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What doAPPENDIX
the locals think?
SECTION 3: PERCEPTIONS OF THE PEOPLE AT YOUR TABLE
This section is designed to measure your perceptions of the group of people at your table.
QUESTION 4: IDENTIFICATION WITH THE GROUP OF PEOPLE AT YOUR TABLE
Please select the pair of circles that you feel best represents how much you identify with the group of
people at your table. Please note that S=self and G=group of people at your table.
QUESTION 5: FEELINGS ABOUT THE GROUP OF PEOPLE AT YOUR TABLE
Please respond to the following statements regarding the group of people at your table.
How strongly do you agree with the following?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
I am glad to be part of the group at this table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
It is pleasant to be in this group at this table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Being in this group gives me a good feeling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I feel that I belong to this group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I am happy to be part of this group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I see myself as part of this group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I believe I contributed important ideas to group
discussions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I believe I had a lot of input in group discussions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
We are a closely knit group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Our group works well together
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This group engaged in effective discussion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This group allows for group members to express
themselves
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
51
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
SECTION 4: PERCEPTIONS OF THE PEOPLE IN THE LARGER WORKSHOP
This section is designed to measure your perceptions of the group of people in the larger workshop.
QUESTION 6: IDENTIFICATION WITH PEOPLE IN THE LARGER WORKSHOP
Please select the pair of circles that you feel best represents how much you identify with the group of
people in the larger workshop. Please note that S=self and G=group of people in the larger workshop.
QUESTION 7: FEELINGS ABOUT THE GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE LARGER
WORKSHOP
Please respond to the following statements regarding the group of people in the larger workshop.
How strongly do you agree with the following?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
I am glad to be part of the group at this table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
It is pleasant to be in this group at this table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Being in this group gives me a good feeling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SECTION 5: PERCEPTIONS OF THE EXPERTS AND THE
WORKSHOP INFORMATION
This section is designed to measure your perceptions of the experts and information provided in the
workshop.
QUESTION 8: TRUST IN THE WORKSHOP INFORMATION
Not al all
To what extent do you trust the information provided
in the workshop?
52
1
2
Moderate
(4)
3
4
Very much
5
6
7
APPENDIX
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the
locals think?
QUESTION 9: TRUST IN EXPERT WHO SPOKE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND
LOW EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES
Please consider the expert who spoke about
climate change and low emission technologies when
answering the following:
Not al all
Moderate
(4)
Very much
To what extent do you consider this expert to be
trustworthy?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you trust the information provided by
this expert?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you consider this expert to be honest?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you think that this expert speaks the
truth?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely
disagree
Neutral
(4)
Completely
agree
This expert has a lot of knowledge about climate change
and low emission technologies
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This expert was able to demonstrate relevant knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
QUESTION 10: TRUST IN EXPERT WHO SPOKE ABOUT CARBON CAPTURE
AND STORAGE (DR LINDA STALKER)
Please consider the expert who spoke about carbon
capture and storage (i.e. Dr Linda Stalker) when
answering the following:
Not al all
Moderate
(4)
Very much
To what extent do you consider this expert to be
trustworthy?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you trust the information provided by
this expert?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you consider this expert to be honest?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you think that this expert speaks the
truth?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely
disagree
Neutral
(4)
Completely
agree
This expert has a lot of knowledge about climate change
and low emission technologies
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This expert was able to demonstrate relevant knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
53
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
QUESTION 11: ATTITUDES TOWARD CLIMATE CHANGE AND RELATED ISSUES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
How strongly do you agree with the following?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
Climate change is an important issue for Australia
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The production of electricity is a major contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Industry should be doing more to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
People should be doing more to promote electricity
conservation in the home
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Government should be doing more to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
People should be doing more to promote electricity
conservation in the workplace
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Increasing the price of electricity to help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
QUESTION 12: ATTITUDES TOWARD ENERGY SOURCES AND RELATED
TECHNOLOGIES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
How strongly do you support the use of the
following energy sources/technologies?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
Wind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nuclear
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Hydro-electric
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coal (Traditional/current methods)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Natural Gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Geothermal (hot rocks)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Solar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Biofuels
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Oil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Wave/tidal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coal seam gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY
54
APPENDIX
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the
locals think?
POST-WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire will assess some of your perspectives toward climate change and energy. The
responses you provide form part of a larger research project into the Australian public’s perspectives on
these issues. This questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes of your time.
Your participation is greatly appreciated.
SECTION 1: IDENTITY CODE
To help us analyse your responses, we need to be able to link your responses to the questionnaire you
completed earlier. To do this, on the earlier questionnaire we asked you to form an anonymous identify
code, by listing the first two letters of your mother’s or guardian’s first name (e.g. Mary becomes MA)
followed by the date and month of your birthday (e.g. if you were born on the 2nd April you would write
0204). For this example, the ID Code becomes MA0204. Below, please write in your own identity code
(it should be the same as the code you wrote on the Pre-Workshop Questionnaire).
PLEASE PRINT YOUR ID CODE HERE: ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
PLEASE PRINT YOUR TABLE NUMBER HERE: _____
SECTION 2: DEMOGRAPHICS
To ensure our records are correct we would like you to enter some information about yourself.
QUESTION 1: AGE
What is your age (in years)?
QUESTION 2: SEX
What is your sex? (Please tick one only.)
Male
Female
QUESTION 3: LOCATION
What is the postcode of your home address? _________
55
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
SECTION 3: KNOWLEDGE
This section is designed to measure your knowledge of climate change, energy sources and related
technologies, and other related issues.
QUESTION 4: KNOWLEDGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND RELATED ISSUES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your knowledge of the
following topics.
How would you rate your knowledge
of the following?
No
knowledge
Climate change
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Government initiatives to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Electricity conservation in the home
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Industry initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Electricity conservation in the workplace
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The relationship between the price of
electricity and greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Moderate
knowledge
High
knowledge
QUESTION 5: KNOWLEDGE OF ENERGY SOURCES AND RELATED
TECHNOLOGIES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your knowledge of the
following topics.
How would you rate your knowledge
of the following?
No
knowledge
Wind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nuclear
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Hydro-electric
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coal (traditional/current methods)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Natural Gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Geothermal (hot rocks)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Solar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Biofuels
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Oil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Wave/tidal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coal seam gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
56
Moderate
knowledge
High
knowledge
APPENDIX
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the
locals think?
SECTION 4: ATTITUDES
This section is designed to measure your opinions toward climate change, energy sources and related
technologies, and other related issues.
QUESTION 6: ATTITUDES TOWARD CLIMATE CHANGE AND RELATED ISSUES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
How strongly do you agree with the following?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
Climate change is an important issue for Australia
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The production of electricity is a major contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Industry should be doing more to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
People should be doing more to promote electricity
conservation in the home
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Government should be doing more to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
People should be doing more to promote electricity
conservation in the workplace
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Increasing the price of electricity to help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
QUESTION 7: ATTITUDES TOWARD ENERGY SOURCES AND RELATED
TECHNOLOGIES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
How strongly do you support the
use of the following energy sources/
technologies?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
Wind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nuclear
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Hydro-electric
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coal (traditional/current methods)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Natural Gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Geothermal (hot rocks)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Solar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Biofuels
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Oil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Wave/tidal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coal seam gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
57
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
QUESTION 8: PRIORITY RANKING OF ENERGY SOURCES AND RELATED
TECHNOLOGIES
Please rank the following energy sources and related technologies in the priority order that you
would use to allocate public funds toward their development and implementation. Your priority order
should be written next to the energy sources below. Please follow the order of 1 (one) for the highest
priority, through to 12 (twelve) for the lowest priority. Note you should use each number between 1
and 12 only once.
Energy sources and related technologies
FUNDING PRIORITY ORDER
Wind
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Nuclear
Hydro-electric
Coal (traditional/current methods)
Natural Gas
Geothermal (hot rocks)
Solar
Biofuels
Oil
Wave/tidal
Coal seam gas
SECTION 5: INTENDED BEHAVIOUR
This section is designed to measure various aspects of your intentions.
QUESTION 9: INTENTION TO CHANGE BEHAVIOUR
Listed below are some specific behaviours that relate to the environment. Please complete the
following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
As a result of this workshop I will:
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
Pay extra for ‘green’ electricity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Recycle my garbage (e.g. cans, bottles, newspapers)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Consider energy efficiency ratings when purchasing
white goods
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Use plastic bags when shopping
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Install a solar hot water system in my home
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Use energy efficient light bulbs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Conserve my use of electricity in the home
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Conserve my use of electricity in the workplace
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Continue with my current behaviour as I already
practice most of the behaviours above
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
58
APPENDIX
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the
locals think?
QUESTION 10: WILLINGNESS TO PAY MORE FOR ELECTRICITY
Would you be willing to pay more for your household electricity if it reduced greenhouse gas
emissions? Please tick “no” or “yes” to indicate your opinion:
NO (Go to Question 11)
YES (Continue below)
If you answered yes, which of the following best describes how much more you would be willing to pay
for your household electricity if it reduced greenhouse gas emissions? (Please tick only one box.)
I would pay less than $25 per quarter.
Please specify the amount more per quarter in dollars: $______ .
I would pay up to $25 more per quarter (about $2 per week)
I would pay up to $50 more per quarter (about $4 per week)
I would pay up to $75 more per quarter (about $6 per week)
I would pay up to $100 more per quarter (about $8 per week)
I would pay up to $150 more per quarter (about $12 per week)
I would pay more than $151 more per quarter.
Please specify the amount more per quarter in dollars: $_____ .
SECTION 6: PERCEPTIONS OF THE PEOPLE AT YOUR TABLE
This section is designed to measure your perceptions of the group of people at your table.
QUESTION 11: IDENTIFICATION WITH THE GROUP OF PEOPLE AT YOUR
TABLE
Please select the pair of circles that you feel best represents how much you identify with the group of
people at your table. Please note that S=self and G=group of people at your table.
59
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
QUESTION 12: FEELINGS ABOUT THE GROUP OF PEOPLE AT YOUR TABLE
Please respond to the following statements regarding the group of people at your table.
How strongly do you agree with the following?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
I am glad to be part of the group at this table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
It is pleasant to be in this group at this table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Being in this group gives me a good feeling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I feel that I belong to this group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I am happy to be part of this group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I see myself as part of this group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I believe I contributed important ideas to group
discussions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I believe I had a lot of input in group discussions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
We are a closely knit group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Our group works well together
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This group engaged in effective discussion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This group allows for group members to express
themselves
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SECTION 7: PERCEPTIONS OF THE
PEOPLE IN THE LARGER WORKSHOP
This section is designed to measure your perceptions of the group of people in the larger workshop.
QUESTION 13: IDENTIFICATION WITH PEOPLE IN THE LARGER WORKSHOP
Please select the pair of circles that you feel best represents how much you identify with the group of
people in the larger workshop. Please note that S=self and G=group of people in the larger workshop.
60
APPENDIX
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the
locals think?
QUESTION 14: FEELINGS ABOUT THE GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE LARGER
WORKSHOP
Please respond to the following statements regarding the group of people in the larger workshop.
How strongly do you agree with the following?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
I am glad to be part of this workshop group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
It is pleasant to be in this workshop group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Being in this workshop group gives me a good feeling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SECTION 8: PERCEPTIONS OF THE EXPERTS AND THE
WORKSHOP INFORMATION
This section is designed to measure your perceptions of the experts and information provided in the
workshop.
QUESTION 15: TRUST IN THE WORKSHOP INFORMATION
Not al all
To what extent do you trust the information provided
in the workshop?
1
Moderate
(4)
2
3
4
Very much
5
6
7
QUESTION 16: TRUST IN EXPERT WHO SPOKE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
AND LOW EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES
Please consider the expert who spoke about
climate change and low emission technologies when
answering the following:
Not al all
Moderate
(4)
Very much
To what extent do you consider this expert to be
trustworthy?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you trust the information provided by
this expert?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you consider this expert to be honest?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you think that this expert speaks the
truth?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely
disagree
Neutral
(4)
Completely
agree
This expert has a lot of knowledge about climate change
and low emission technologies
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This expert was able to demonstrate relevant knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
61
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
QUESTION 17: TRUST IN EXPERT WHO SPOKE ABOUT CARBON CAPTURE
AND STORAGE (DR LINDA STALKER)
Please consider the expert who spoke about carbon
capture and storage (i.e. Dr Linda Stalker) when
answering the following:
Not al all
Moderate
(4)
Very much
To what extent do you consider this expert to be
trustworthy?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you trust the information provided by
this expert?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you consider this expert to be honest?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
To what extent do you think that this expert speaks the
truth?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely
disagree
Neutral
(4)
Completely
agree
This expert has a lot of knowledge about climate change
and low emission technologies
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This expert was able to demonstrate relevant knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SECTION 9: WORKSHOP FAIRNESS
This section is designed to measure your perceptions of the workshop.
QUESTION 18: WORKSHOP FAIRNESS
We are interested in how you perceived the workshop process. Please complete the following by
circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
To what extent:
Small
Extent
Moderate
Extent (4)
Large
Extent
Were you able to express your views and feelings during the
workshop?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Did you have influence over the outcomes (e.g., summary of key
points) of the workshop?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Were you able to provide feedback regarding the outcomes
arrived at by the workshop?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Did the workshop outcomes reflect the effort you put in?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Were the workshop outcomes appropriate considering the input
you had?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Did the workshop outcomes reflect what you contributed?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Were you treated in a polite manner?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Were you treated with dignity?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Were you treated with respect?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Was communication in the workshop sincere?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Was the workshop process thoroughly explained?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Were explanations regarding the workshop process reasonable?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
62
APPENDIX
A
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the
locals think?
SECTION 10: WORKSHOP EVALUATION
The questions in this section are designed to identify your perspectives of the workshop. This assists
with the continued advancement of our research processes.
QUESTION 19: WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
Was your understanding improved through the
following?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
The presentations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Being able to ask questions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The discussions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
All of the information and activities
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
QUESTION 20: WORKSHOP FEATURES
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
How strongly do you agree with the following?
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
The venue was suitable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I will read the written information provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The workshop was informative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The facilitator of the workshop was easy to understand
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The length of the workshop was appropriate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The food provided was excellent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The activities were enjoyable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
QUESTION 21: PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP
Please complete the following by placing a tick the box(es) that most closely match your opinions of
the purpose of today’s workshop.
Convince
Inform
Engage
Access my opinions
Influence
Other purposes (please state)
Consult
63
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
QUESTION 22: FURTHER INFORMATION
Please complete the following by circling the number that most closely matches your opinion.
As a result of this workshop I will:
Strongly
disagree
Unsure
(4)
Strongly
agree
Seek further information on the topic from books
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Seek further information on the topic from the Internet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Talk to my friends about the workshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Talk to my family about the workshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Talk to my work colleagues about the workshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Speak with other people from the workshop about the
information provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
QUESTION 23: INFORMATION TOPICS
Please complete the following by ticking the box next to the topic that you would like more
information on as a result of this workshop.
Climate change
Coal (traditional/current methods)
Wind energy
Carbon Capture and Storage
Solar energy
Geothermal (Hot Rocks)
Nuclear energy
Hydro-electricity
Natural Gas
Biofuels
Wave/tidal energy
Other (please state)
Coal seam gas
QUESTION 24: COMMENTS
In the space provided please write any other comments you would like to share with us.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY
64
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
APPENDIX B
Sample characteristics
Valid
Measure
Levels
Gender
Age group
Household type
Household income
Missing
N
%
N
%
Male
16
50.0
1
3.1
Female
15
46.9
0
0.0
3
9.4
4
12.5
18-24 years
1
3.1
25-34 years
1
3.1
35-44 years
6
18.8
45-54 years
9
28.1
55-64 years
5
15.6
65+ years
10
31.3
Group household
0
0.0
Single person household
7
21.9
One parent with child(ren)
2
6.3
Couple with no children
11
34.4
Couple with child(ren)
9
28.1
Other family household
0
0.0
Less than $10,000
0
0.0
$10,000 – 19,999
1
3.1
$20,000 – 29,999
3
9.4
$30,000 - 39,999
1
3.1
$40,000 - 49,999
4
12.5
$50,000 - 59,999
1
3.1
$60,000 - 69,999
3
9.4
$70,000 – 79,999
0
0.0
$80,000 – 89,999
1
3.1
$90,000 – 99,999
1
3.1
$100,000-124,999
4
12.5
$125,000 – 149,999
2
6.3
$150,000 - 199,999
5
15.6
$200,000 - 249,999
1
3.1
More than $250,000
1
3.1
Prefer not to respond
0
0.0
65
APPENDIX
B CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
Results from Collie
Sample characteristics
Education
Employment
Occupation
66
Primary School
2
6.3
Year 9 or below
0
0.0
Year 10 or equivalent
3
9.4
Year 11 or equivalent
0
0.0
Year 12 or equivalent
2
6.3
Trade certificate/apprenticeship
2
6.3
Diploma
5
15.6
Bachelor/honours degree
13
40.6
Postgraduate degree
4
12.5
Employed full time
8
25.0
Employed part time or casual
5
15.6
Self employed
7
21.9
Unemployed
2
6.3
Retired/pension recipient
7
21.9
Home duties
1
3.1
Full time student
1
3.1
Part time student
0
0.0
Manager
4
12.5
Professional
6
18.8
Technician/trade worker
1
3.1
Community/personal service worker
0
0.0
Clerical/administrative worker
2
6.3
Sales worker
1
3.1
Machinery operator/driver
0
0.0
Labourer
2
6.3
Not in paid employment
3
9.4
Other
4
12.5
1
3.1
1
3.1
9
28.1
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
APPENDIX C
Digivote
67
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
68
C
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What doAPPENDIX
the locals think?
Digivote
69
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
70
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
APPENDIX D
Presentations
71
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
72
D
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What doAPPENDIX
the locals think?
Presentations
73
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
74
D
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What doAPPENDIX
the locals think?
Presentations
75
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
76
D
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What doAPPENDIX
the locals think?
Presentations
77
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
78
D
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What doAPPENDIX
the locals think?
Presentations
79
Results from Collie CCS Hub workshop: What do the locals think?
80