* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download A Technological Solution for Climate Change? Storage
Document related concepts
Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 A Technological Solution for Climate Change? Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage Jasmine Livingston (1142521) 2012 Word Count: 11,971 This dissertation is submitted as part of a MA degree in Environment, Politics and Globalisation at King’s College London 1. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 KING’S COLLEGE LONDON UNIVERSITY OF LONDON DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY MA/MSc DISSERTATION I, Jasmine Livingston hereby declare (a) that this Dissertation is my own original work and that all source material used is acknowledged therein; (b) that it has been specially prepared for a degree of the University of London; and (c) that it does not contain any material that has been or will be submitted to the Examiners of this or any other university, or any material that has been or will be submitted for any other examination. This Dissertation is......……………………words. Signed:………………………………………...…. Date:…………………...………………………..... 2. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 A Technological Solution for Climate Change? Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage Abstract: This study examines technological solutions for climate change, through the case of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). It assesses discourse on CCS within ‘official’ and ‘public’ circles through document analysis and focus groups. It finds that most ‘official’ stakeholders express ‘cautious optimism’, that the public are not well informed and the shaping of opinion relies largely on perceptions of stakeholders. The study concludes that CCS is complicated for the public to understand, but that, unlike some energy technologies, involvement might not be crucial to its success. Where public involvement is necessary, care should be taken to consider underlying social reasoning. 3. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract.........................................................................................................3 Table of Contents..........................................................................................4 List of Tables and figures..............................................................................4 List of Abbreviations......................................................................................8 Acknowledgements.......................................................................................9 1. Introduction..............................................................................................10 1.1. A ‘solution’ for climate change?........................................................10 1.2. Discourses of engagement...............................................................10 1.3. Aims and Objectives.........................................................................11 2. Carbon Capture and Storage..................................................................12 2.1. The Technology................................................................................12 2.2. The Policy.........................................................................................13 3. Context and Background.........................................................................15 3.1. Technology and Society....................................................................15 3.1.1. Solution or fix?.........................................................................15 3.1.2. Social perspectives..................................................................15 3.1.3. Technology and climate change..............................................16 3.2. ‘Citizen science’ / ‘Citizen policy’.......................................................17 3.2.1. Defining the actors...................................................................17 3.2.2. Models of engagement............................................................17 3.2.3. The Value of engagement.......................................................19 3.3. Academic Attention on CCS.............................................................19 3.3.1. Stakeholder Opinion................................................................20 3.3.2. Public Opinion.........................................................................21 3.3.3. This study................................................................................22 4. Methodology............................................................................................23 4.1. Conceptual model.............................................................................23 4.2. Choice of methods............................................................................25 4. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 4.3. Document analysis............................................................................26 4.3.1. Sample....................................................................................26 4.3.2. Data gathering and analysis....................................................27 4.4. Focus Groups....................................................................................28 4.4.1. Sample.....................................................................................28 4.4.2. Data gathering and analysis.....................................................28 4.5. Positionality........................................................................................30 5. Results and Discussion............................................................................31 5.1. ‘Official’..............................................................................................31 5.1.1. Themes....................................................................................31 5.1.2. Relationships...........................................................................34 5.1.3. Language.................................................................................35 5.1.4. CCS as a solution....................................................................36 5.2. ‘Public’...............................................................................................37 5.2.1. Dynamics of focus groups.......................................................37 5.2.2. Climate change solutions.........................................................37 22.214.171.124. Role of technology........................................................38 5.2.3. Knowledge and perceptions of CCS........................................39 126.96.36.199. Costs and benefits........................................................39 188.8.131.52. Links with other technologies........................................40 184.108.40.206. Disconnect....................................................................41 5.2.4. Perception of actors.................................................................42 220.127.116.11. Organisations and public perceptions...........................42 18.104.22.168. Implications of language...............................................44 5.2.5. Involvement in climate change mitigation policy.....................45 6. Conclusion...............................................................................................48 6.1. Construction of a discourse...............................................................49 6.2. Technological solution / technological fix...........................................51 Appendices....................................................................................................54 Appendix 1: Ethical approval and risk assessment.......................................54 Appendix 2: Further details on types of CCS................................................57 Appendix 3: Full list of documents for document analysis............................58 5. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 Appendix 4: Document analysis sheet.........................................................60 Appendix 5: Focus group details.................................................................61 Appendix 6: Outline of focus group questions.............................................62 Appendix 7: Extract from focus group transcript.........................................68 References Cited........................................................................................75 6. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 1: Summary of documents analysed Table 2: Overview of focus group questions Figures Figure 1: The stages of CCS Figure 2: Conceptual model for this study Figure 3: Main themes identified in stakeholder documents on CCS 2007-2012 Figure 4: Coverage of articles on CCS in UK National newspapers 2007-2012 Figure 5: Conceptual model incorporating findings of this study 7. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACCAT Advisory Committee on Carbon Abatement Technologies BP British Petroleum CCR Carbon Capture Ready CCS Carbon Capture and Storage CCSA Carbon Capture and Storage Association CDM Clean Development Mechanism CO2 Carbon Dioxide DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change DTI Department of Trade and Industry EC European Commission EU European Union FG Focus Group IEA International Energy Agency IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRGC International Risk Governance Council Mt Megatons MW Megawatts NER300 New Entrance Reserve 300 NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations NIMBY Not In My Back Yard NRS National Readership Survey NUMBY Not Under My Back Yard R&D Research & Development SCCS Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage UK United Kingdom USA United States of America WWF World Wildlife Fund 8. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professor Ragnar Löfstedt for his help and guidance throughout this project. I am also grateful to Professor Raymond Bryant and Dr Henry Rothstein for their input at an early stage. I also want to thank all my focus group participants and respondents without whom this research would not have been possible, my friends and family for their proofreading and feedback and Tony for keeping me sane. 9. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 A ‘SOLUTION’ FOR CLIMATE CHANGE? Political debate surrounding climate change is increasingly widespread. The need for reductions of CO2 in order to limit temperature rise to within 2°C (UNFCCC, 2009) is proclaimed within scientific and political circles (IPCC, 2007, 2011; Stern, 2007) and debate is no longer focused on acceptance of the science, rather on mitigation options (Bailey and Compston, 2010; King 2004). Despite this, it appears that individuals are disengaged with climate change mitigation efforts, evident through a pervasive ‘value-action gap’ (Blake, 1999). This, along with the assumed failure of international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, has raised the profile of alternative technological solutions not requiring the same level of individual engagement (Barratt, 2006; Foxon, 2009; Katz, 2009; New Scientist, 2011; Rasch, 2010). These range from alternative energy options such as nuclear or renewable sources (Foxon et al., 2005; Foxon and Pearson, 2008), Carbon Abatement Technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage (ACCAT, 2009) to geoengineering (Royal Society, 2009). Such debate, within political and technical communities, has raised questions about technology’s capacity and right to manage climate change. This paper is concerned with one of these technologies; Carbon Capture and Storage (hereafter CCS), increasingly being framed as part of innovation for a low carbon energy future (Markusson et al., 2012) 1.2 DISCOURSES OF ENGAGEMENT Public engagement with discussions on climate change mitigation options is important (Leiserowitz, 2007) as it may lead to lifestyle changes. Presentation of solutions and their subsequent take-up in society is essential to their success (Reiner et al., 2008), likely to be particularly important for technological options requiring complex understanding, as well as with some degree of risk (Kasperson et al., 2005; Zimmerman, 1982). In forming opinions on such issues, the public gains information from a wide range of stakeholders, understanding of which is crucial (Weingart et al. 2000). Variations and 10. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 misunderstanding in presentation and perceptions of discourses between ‘official’ stakeholders and the ‘public’ is a barrier to the uptake of such technologies (Vicklund, 2000), contributing to public ‘disengagement’ with science and technology (Collin and Evans, 2007). 1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES This study examines several aspects of the above, in the context of CCS. Its aims are twofold: 1. To examine the construction of discourses around the technology as a particular climate change solution, 2. In doing this to look at the concept of a ‘technological solution’ for climate change in the context of CCS. The research is divided into two parts, the first concerned with so-called ‘official’ channels, the second broadening to include general ‘public’. Specific questions are: ‘Official’ - What are the dominant framings utilised when presenting CCS? - How is CCS presented as a solution for climate change? ‘Public’ - What shapes public opinion on CCS? - How does the public engage with ‘official’ views of CCS? - What implications does this have for the uptake of the technology? Chapter 2 outlines the technological and policy context of CCS; Chapter 3 presents the theoretical context, justifying this paper’s position in the context of other work undertaken in this area; Chapter 4 outlines the conceptual framework and particular methods adopted; results will then be summarised and discussed. The final chapter presents the conclusions. 11. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 2.0. CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE 2.1 THE TECHNOLOGY CCS is the process of separating CO2 from industrial or power plant emissions, transportation and storage in a location that isolates it from the atmosphere (this process is summarised in Figure 1). Figure 1: The stages of CCS (SCCS, 2011) There are three types of CCS; post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxyfuel capture (IPCC, 2005) (see appendix 2 for an overview). The first of these likely to be commercially deployed is post-combustion capture (Gibbins and Chalmers, 2008), where CO2 is separated from flue gases for compression and storage. This process is thought to be able to remove around 90% of the CO2. Waste CO2 is transported by pipeline and stored in depleted oil and gas fields or deep saline aquifers. Other storage options, like ocean storage, are unfeasible due to the lack of public acceptance and risks of negative environmental consequences (Palmgren et al., 2004). So far, large scale application of CCS is limited. There are some instances of smaller scale application, such as at the Sleipner gas platforms in Norway, but worldwide 12. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 only one full scale project has been approved for commercial development, with three to start development in 2012 (Hazeldine, 2012). 2.2 THE POLICY The International Energy Agency believes that using CCS would considerably reduce costs of attempts to realise worldwide commitments to limiting temperature increase to 2-3°C (IEA, 2009). In the European Union (EU) the CCS Directive (2009/231/EC) outlines the legal framework for the implementation of CCS. This was followed by the decision on financing of CCS and renewable energy technologies (2010/670/EU) which supports the implementation of CCS within Member States, and in particular the consideration of ‘carbon capture-ready’ power plants (CCR) (Liang et al., 2010). In May 2012 a CCS testing programme opened at Mongstad in Norway. This illustrates the importance of international collaboration in enabling the development of the technology. There is some concern that enabling large scale CCS throughout the EU will be hindered by different government-industry relationships within member states (Newbury et al., 2009). Despite these concerns there are currently several CCS projects, within the UK at least, shortlisted for a share of the €1.5bn European Investment Bank New Entrant Reserve (NER300) scheme (Russell, 2012). The UK government passed the Climate Change Act in 2008, committing to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, and thus complete decarbonisation of the electricity system by 2030 (DECC, 2009b). The UK is thought to be ideal for development of CCS, its industrial past having left an abundance of depleted offshore oil and gas fields and existing infrastructure (DECC Science Advisory Group, 2011; DTI, 2005). CCS is expensive, and experience with other pollutants indicates that cost reduction can be realised through full scale commercial deployment (Gibbins and Chalmers, 2008). With this in mind the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) launched a competition in 2007 under which the first commercial scale development of CCS would be realised. In October 2011, however, the last project at Longannet Power Station in Scotland was cancelled. This was attributed to cost, but other reasons included a change in politics, lack of public backing and decreased interest in climate change (Hammond and Shackley, 2010). The competition was revived in April 2012, broadening the remit to include 13. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 gas power stations and both pre- and post-combustion CCS technologies; DECC is offering £1bn to a developer who can prove the full chain of CCS technologies at a commercial scale. In addition, stressing the need to reduce cost and enhance efficiency, the government launched parallel competitions of £125m and £20m to fund R&D and component development respectively (DECC, 2012). The need for government backing is apparent, as without it, failure to engage is seen as an innovation market failure (DECC, 2009a; Reiner, 2011), and the extent of public sector financial support is taken as a measure of commitment to the technology as part of its climate change portfolio. 14. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 3.0. CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND 3.1 TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY 3.1.1 Solution or fix? Technology has become a crucial part of our society (Jasanoff, 2004), impacting on every aspect of our lives, and, thus, is constantly under scrutiny. The way technology transforms our lives, and its potential to offer solutions has been questioned, introducing the idea of the ‘technological fix’ in opposition to true technological solutions (Fischer and Black, 1995; Rosner, 2004). Developing over the latter part of the 20th Century, the concept has negative connotations as a “cheap, quick fix using inappropriate technology which usually creates more problems than it solves” (Rosner, 2004:1). The problems of technology have been connected to the ‘risk society’ (Beck, 1992), as “the same science and technology that makes us modern produces our risks and...advanced statistics enables us to calculate them” (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1983:29). In addition, connections between technology and the degradation of the environment have meant that negative implications of the ‘technological fix’ have been implicitly linked with environmental issues (LeCain, 2004). Scientific or technical solutions appeal to “an administrative mind overcoming conflict and trouble, diversity and plurality, to guide and govern a unified humanity with a singularity of purpose” (Fisher and Black, 1995:6). Proponents believe that as technology is the cause of the problem, it is therefore the solution, and have faith in the superiority of science, technology and the market. This technocratic viewpoint is embodied in the wider discourse of ‘ecological modernisation’ which promotes supremacy of technical and business solutions for wider environmental crises (Bailey et al., 2011; Mol et al., 2009). 3.1.2 Social perspectives Many believe that the technocratic viewpoint is limited (Fischer and Black, 1995, Fri, 2003; Torvanger and Meadowcroft, 2011). The view of science and technology as 15. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 ‘neutral’ and ‘objective’ detaches it from wider social and economic contexts. There is acknowledgment that a technological solution for a social problem cannot work (Fisher and Black, 1995), as looking at technology independently separates it from its social context (Reiner and Nuttall, 2009; Wynne, 1998). Theorists point to the importance of considering interconnections and differences between involved sectors, such as science, industry, politics and the public, as these are measures of the socially constructed nature of an issue (Weingart et al., 2000). Kranzenberg’s 4th law of technology states, “although technology might be a prime element in many public issues, nontechnical factors take precedence in technology-policy decisions” (1986:8); thus technology is socially constructed and framed, but also socially legitimised (Blühdorn, 2011). A ‘technological fix’ rather than an ‘attitudinal’ or ‘social’ one, therefore, does not appeal to those who see it as ignoring social issues. Hemple (1995) examines a ‘successful’ technological fix – the catalytic converter. Here, car use is a given, ignoring the fact that ‘mobility’ is itself a socially constructed concept. Such perspectives are considered with regard to supposed technological solutions for environmental problems. Jasanoff believes that in order to avoid accusation of either social or technological determinism no primacy should be given to either side; “science and society, in a word, are co-produced, each underwriting the other’s existence” (2004:17). Thus they cannot, and should not, be separated. 3.1.3 Technology and climate change Climate change is a complex problem, and its surrounding discourse “confusing, contradictory and chaotic” (Ereaut and Segnit, 2006:7); as a result it requires a ‘clumsy solution’ (Verweij et al., 2006). The complexity of the climate change issue raises the question as to whether one technology can ever be considered a solution; should governments focus all their economic resources on one technology, or distribute it across many (Hoffert et al., 2002; Torvanger and Meadowcroft, 2011). Pacala and Socolow (2004) provide an insight into how a technological solution for climate change could be realised, by separating the solution across seven manageable wedges of alternative technologies which would be needed in order to stabilise atmospheric CO2 by 2050, demonstrating the scale and complexity of the technological challenge. In addition to sheer technological scale, as Grubb (2005) 16. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 highlights, the scaling up of existing technologies indicated by Pacala and Socolow (2004) will present us with new social and environmental problems. Thus, technology’s potential to provide a solution must be considered on an individual basis (Sarewitz and Nelson, 2008). Although the critical discussion on ‘technological fixes’ for climate change has mostly circled the technocratic claim of a ‘climate-technology’ revolution (Barratt, 2009) in the context of emerging geoengineering schemes (Brewer, 2007; Moriaty and Honnery, 2011; Vaughan and Lenton, 2011), it has also been directed towards other technological solutions, of which CCS is one. This is a claim that this paper will consider more thoroughly. 3.2 ‘CITIZEN SCIENCE’ / ‘CITIZEN POLICY’ 3.2.1 Defining the actors Another important, related factor is the degree to which different actors are involved in decisions on climate change mitigation; these can be summarised as the technocratic, ‘let experts decide’ view or democratic perspectives characteristic of inclusive governance patterns (Conca, 2005; Fischer, 2003; Held and McGrew, 2002; Irwin and Michael, 2003). Such views depend on fundamental assumptions that different stakeholders have divergent opinions, and frame issues in different ways. Evans and Plow (2007) outline how defining various groups as ‘expert’ and ‘non-expert’ or ‘hegemonic’ and ‘alternative’, may be simplistic (Evans and Plow, 2007). Each group, however they are defined, has particular ways of communicating; for instance science with its complexities and uncertainties, politics, presenting a solvable problem that requires political legitimacy, and media, presenting a newsworthy and urgent story (Allan, 2002; Rowe et al., 2000; Weingart et al., 2000). This creates different discourses in each sector and highlights difficulties of communication. 3.2.2 Models of engagement The role of public involvement has been hotly contested. Maranta et al. (2003) outline how scientists’ perceptions of the so called ‘imagined lay person’ as illinformed and curious to learn, perpetuates the ‘expert-lay divide’. This is a ‘deficit model’ of communication. The public, however, is not an inert body: “to impose a 17. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 model of communication that does not keep barriers to behaviour and social change in mind is unlikely to be effective or sufficient” (Moser and Dilling, 2007:11). Such a model of communication is similar to Weingart et al.’s (2002) ‘rational-instrumental’ model of risk communication whereby a technocratic view, as discussed above, leads to a vision that education of ‘non-experts’ is all that is necessary (Hammond and Shackley, 2010). Evans and Durant (1995) illustrate how, in reality, those who are more scientifically or technically aware tend also to be more critical of the information they are given. It is believed that wider “public engagement is needed in order to test and contest the framing of the issues that experts are asked to resolve. Without such critical supervision, experts have often found themselves offering irrelevant advice on wrong or misguided questions” (Jasanoff, 2003:397-8), particularly in the context of a ‘macro-ethics of responsibility’ (Stydom, 2002:4) brought about through increased focus on risk (Giddens, 1991). The recognition that such models of public engagement are not sufficient has highlighted the need for processes which recognise that citizens have their own way of interpreting technical information, and that their ‘lay’ knowledge should not be dismissed (Irwin, 1995; Irwin and Michael, 2003; Wynne, 1996). The development of a ‘participatory expertise’ (Fisher, 1993) recognises that values are as important as the provision of ‘facts’ in defining the way people feel about technical debates. Fischer’s (2004) four levels of discourse model suggests that citizens approach decisions based on the realities of the social world and that technical experts should take this into account and bring it into policy decisions in this area. This model will be explained for the purpose of this study in a later section. Considering such viewpoints is paramount in policy discussions on energy technologies, partly because of the history of their societal acceptance (Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Wustenhagen et al., 2007; Vicklund, 2000). Initial application of deficit styles of communication has led to a history of suspicion (Wustenhagen et al., 2007). This is illustrated in the context of the Talking Energy (BERR, 2007) event on nuclear power where a representative sample of UK population expressed reserve about the role of nuclear in the future energy mix. The paper states that “...contributions have provided the Government with a vital insight into the view of the people of the UK. The Government will set out their final decision later this year” (2007:5). Despite the reservations the decision to invest further in nuclear power was 18. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 made, raising questions over the value of such consultation processes. The motivations for engagement are therefore unclear, as “inviting citizens to engage without giving them substantive influence or valuing their input ultimately diminishes rather than restores trust in inviting institutions and people’s feelings of efficacy” (Hoppner, 2009:10). 3.2.3 The value of engagement For some, increased focus on public participation is confusing traditional divisions between ‘expert’ and ‘non-expert’. Evans and Plow (2007) illustrate how the role of the ‘expert’ is becoming one of communication and management rather than decision-making. The ‘non-expert’ is also becoming less distinct; as engagement and involvement increase they become less characteristic of the ‘public’ body they are supposed to represent. This simultaneously downgrades the importance of both technical and ‘lay’ knowledge to reach an indefinable middle ground (Irwin and Michael, 2003); the ‘problem of extension’ (Collins and Evans, 2002). At the core of such models is the assumption that agreement over a technology is the right thing, facilitated by the type of survey methods used in such situations (Malone et al., 2010). Despite this, some have questioned whether preoccupation with public involvement impedes good technical decisions (Löfstedt, 2005). Stilgoe et al. (2006) outlines how a stronger approach would be to engage more experts. The overall message is that communication and engagement should be undertaken on a caseby-case basis (Collins and Evans, 2002; Löfstedt, 2005). Nonetheless, it is the selfsame proliferation of different framings, or discourses, underlying such issues, within both the ‘expert’ and ‘public’ realms that makes reaching decisions and focusing on solutions so difficult (Fischer and Black, 1995). 3.3 ACADEMIC ATTENTION ON CCS Many of the issues raised above are encapsulated in the case of CCS. CCS is a highly technical issue; both technical and social learning are, nonetheless, required (Reiner, 2011). The latter is recognised to be harder than the former. However, since the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) CCS report in 2005 there has been increasing attention in this area. In 2011 and 2012 respectively the Journals Global Environmental Change and Energy & Environment 19. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 devoted special issues to the subject, highlighting its topicality and providing a basis for further research in this area. 3.3.1 Stakeholder opinion Markusson et al. (2011) defines the audience for engagement on CCS to be made up of local residents, governments, media, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the professional CCS community. Expert and stakeholder opinion of CCS has been widely studied; the ACCSEPT project used a multi-country sample, presenting a large-scale survey to various technical and non-technical stakeholders (Shackley et al., 2007), indicating small differences in national opinion. Similarly Johnsson et al. (2008) undertook a comparison between the USA, Japan and Europe, finding minimal variation. However, in undertaking a more detailed qualitative study comparing Norway and Sweden’s media coverage of corporate involvement in CCS, Buhr and Hansson (2011) found widely divergent opinions, suggesting that a more in-depth comparative study might reveal bigger national differences. Within the UK the DECC stakeholder consultation, mainly involving businesses, but including some NGO respondents (7.6%), did not challenge the role for CCS in the future of power generation (DECC, 2009b). This acceptance of the technology amongst stakeholders is reflected in several studies (deConinck and Bäckstrand, 2011; Stephens et al., 2011) with minor variations in the severity of need for CCS between industry and NGOs (Johnsson et al., 2009). Despite overall acceptance, these studies identify many potential barriers to deployment of the technology. Cost is thought to be the greatest obstacle (IEA, 2009). A general lack of international coordination and cooperation (deConinck et al., 2009) and concerns over the wider policy and regulatory context have been expressed (IRGC, 2008, 2009), particularly on its interactions with other European instruments such as the EU ETS (von Stechlow et al., 2011) or international development through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (ACCAT, 2009; Román, 2011). Concerns over possible fossil fuel ‘lock in’ as a result of CCS (Kirchsteiger, 2008; Markusson, 2012) are generally raised by NGOs; thought to be avoided in the future through development of bio-energy CCS (Vergraght et al., 2011). Despite the barriers, the CCS community is optimistic about its deployment (Hansson and Bryngelsson, 2009). The level of positivity is considered potentially 20. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 dangerous to industry and political integrity as there may be repercussions if high expectations are not met (Bryngelsson and Hansson, 2009). Reiner (2008) suggests that general acceptance of CCS by environmental NGOs has led to assumptions that public reception would be similar; however negative reaction to CCS in the US, for instance has been led by grassroots organisations, suggesting a need to engage more widely (Littlecott, 2012). Gough (2007) found public opinion was considered fourth on a list of potential barriers and as such there is general belief that public acceptance of the technology would not be a problem if uncertainties surrounding the technology were dealt with (Gough and Shackley, 2006). 3.3.2 Public opinion There is a perceived ‘mismatch’ between the CCS community (Markusson et al., 2011) and the wider public (Stephens, 2006; Stephens et al., 2011), which in several national contexts, has been found to have a low awareness and understanding of the technology (Curry et al., 2004; Fischedick et al., 2009; Gough et al. 2002, Ha-Duong et al., 2009; Huijts, 2003; Huijts et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2007; Johnsson et al., 2009). Compounding this, there are few communication efforts taking place (Reiner, 2008), despite acknowledgement that they would need to be scaled up if CCS were to become more widespread (vanAlpen et al., 2007). In general, there is no certainty as to whether the wider public would approve of the deployment of CCS (Reiner, 2008). Shackley et al. (2004), utilising a small series of citizen panels, found that although people initially tended to have no opinion or be generally sceptical of CCS, they became more positive once more information was provided. A similar pattern is evident in Morgan’s (2012) study undertaken in Scottish schools. Van Alphen et al.’s (2007) study, in the Netherlands, suggests, however, that there is real potential for negative attitudes to emerge if action is not taken to inform people properly. In the context of previous discussions, these studies would seem to follow a ‘deficit’ correlation between education and acceptance; thus a better understanding of what affects people’s decisions on CCS is needed. 21. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 3.3.3 This study Bäckstrand et al. (2011) offers potential extensions to research undertaken in this area; comparative studies, broader methodological scope and examination of different actor groups. This study attempts to address the latter two, extending the examination of studies on CCS into the wider realm, through looking at both ‘official’ and ‘public’ arenas, and in doing this broadening the scope of methodologies. It is not yet clear to what extent real engagement with the general public on CCS is necessary; indeed there is every chance that CCS “will be viewed in much the same manner as any number of industrial processes that are seen as technical, opaque and largely uninteresting to the general public” (Reiner, 2008:31), but past experience with other technologies, such as nuclear energy or genetically modified organisms, suggests that it is better to assume more than less (Palmgren et al., 2004). Ultimately, as Stephens et al. state, “an investigation of the relationship between and a comparative analysis of the discourse within the CCS community and the general public would be valuable and could reveal insights relevant to the advancement of various different types of technologies with high perceived risks that are susceptible to public opposition” (2011:389). It is in this context that this study provides an elaboration. 22. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 4.0. METHODOLOGY 4.1 CONCEPTUAL MODEL The conceptual framework for this study extends Shackley and Dütschke’s (2012) use of Fischer’s (2004) four-level discourse model in the context of CCS (see Figure 2, next page). Fischer’s model questions the rationality by which scientists come to decisions in examining the assumed ‘irrationalities’ that influence citizens’ opinion. In doing this, the model combines the social construction of technology, more inclusive methods of public engagement and factors affecting public opinions on CCS. The model is extended by: including the wider ‘realms’ in which the research of this study takes place; namely ‘official’ and ‘public’, and, introducing links between them. 23. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage Scientific community International governance regimes 1142521 Environmental Groups Fossil fuel National industry Government Ideological: Worldview Media Systems: Social reasoning ‘Official’ arena Situation: Location Decision taking into account wider context ‘Public’ arena Warrant: Importance Data Technical Verification Purely technical decision Conclusion s Figure 2: Conceptual model for this study (adapted from Fischer (2004) and Shackley and Dütschke (2012)) 24. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 The overall approach of this study is one of discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is a way of examining interaction of texts with wider social practices and context (Hope, 2010; Myerson and Rydin 1996; Sharp and Richardson, 2001) and is increasingly employed in a policy setting (Backstrand and Lovbrand, 2006). It is concerned with; intertextuality, storylines, mental-models, interaction, argument, ideology and power (Hewitt, 2009; Hajer, 1995). Few studies utilising discourse analysis describe the methods employed (Alba-Juez, 2009; Hewitt, 2009), and undertaking it is described as “something like bike riding...which is not easy to render or describe in an explicit manner” (Hoggart et al., 1992:165). Despite this, rather unhelpful statement Saint (2008) highlights that discourse analysis is in some ways what we do every day. Hajer (2006) suggests that to undertake a full discourse analysis one should utilise the whole swathe of qualitative analysis methods; desk research, document analysis, interviews and drawing links between them. This study chooses to use a mixed method of document analysis complemented by elite interviews to examine the ‘official’ arena coupled with focus groups to investigate the ‘public’. Linking the two allows consideration of “discourse coalitions that develop and sustain a particular discourse” (Hajer, 1995:13) amongst the ‘official’ actors, as well as making power relations explicit. 4.2 CHOICE OF METHODS The research is divided into two parts: 1) The ‘official’ data which includes industry, government, NGOs, and, although not an official source as such, print newspapers. It asks: What are the dominant framings of CCS? How it is presented as a solution for climate change? 2) The ‘public’ data, asking: what shapes public opinion on CCS? How does the public engage with ‘official’ views of CCS? What implications does this have for the uptake of the technology? Research was undertaken in June and July 2012. The use of qualitative is justified through the recognition that they provide a better representation of the dynamic, context-dependent and complex nature of the social world (Cloke et al., 2004; Limb 25. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 and Dywer, 2001), correlating with the aims of discourse analysis. Both the nature of discourse analysis and the limits of public knowledge on CCS mean that a more engaging and communicative approach, in this case focus groups, is necessary (Gough et al., 2004). The emphasis in focus groups is to gain “insight into the social, cultural, political, economic and personal dimensions of an issue – its discourse” (Bedford and Burgess, 2001: 121). In addition to adopting a qualitative research design, the need to extend research beyond the ‘official’ domain is justified. Shackley et al. (2005) asked ‘official’ stakeholders how they thought the public would perceive CCS rather than asking them themselves. Likewise, van Alphen et al. (2007) examined stakeholder opinion and used media as a proxy for public opinion. To make such assumptions risks justifying the accusation of seeing the public as consumers rather than citizens (Michael and Irwin, 2003). Assuming that the public are suppressed and powerless in the examination of discourse (Saint, 2008) is also damaging and thus it is necessary to examine both groups to discover complexities and nuances (Stephens et al., 2004). 4.3 DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 4.3.1 Sample A limitation of discourse analysis is that it can incorporate an almost endless range of material (Saint, 2008), it is therefore important to define the terms employed. In this case a series of publications and texts from events were examined using a temporal sample frame of six years; from 2007 to present. These dates were chosen as they represented the time from which the first CCS competition was introduced to 2012 when the second competition was announced. This is taken as the time that political interest has raised the profile of the technology. The organisations that these were taken from and the nature of the documents are summarised in Table 1 (for a full list of documents, see Appendix 3). To complement this it was planned to undertake a series of interviews with ‘elites’ representing industry, NGOs and government, in recognition that the written and spoken word do not offer the same insight (vanAlphen et al., 2007). These were targeted through ‘gatekeepers’. However, the lack of response, as expected when undertaking ‘elite’ 26. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 interviews (McDowell, 1998; Shoenberger, 1991) meant that, where given, written responses were incorporated into wider document analysis. Although a clear limitation, the large database of documentary evidence could make up for this. Although the media is not an ‘official’ source, studies have found that it has a significant role in defining how people form opinions on technologies like CCS (vanAlphen et al., 2007), and therefore it was included in this group. Stakeholder Government Industry NGO Media Source of documents DECC website; Personal Communication British Petroleum (BP) Website; Personal Communication World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Website Number of documents 35 21 20 172 Nature of documents All documents published on DECC website regarding CCS from 2007 to 16th August 2012 All press releases and speech transcripts regarding CCS from 2007 to 16th August 2012 All press releases, statements and flagship publications published on the websites of the above organisations from 2007 to 16th August 2012 All documents including the words ‘carbon capture’ in the headline from 1st January 2007 to 16th August 2012, duplicates and letters to editor removed Personal Communication with DECC representative BP Energy Outlook 2030 for 2012 Lexis Nexis Newspaper Database: all UK National newspapers Personal Communication with Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) Table 1: Summary of documents analysed 27. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 4.3.2 Data gathering and analysis Data from documents was gathered in an analysis sheet based on discussions surrounding environmental discourses in Drysek (2005), Hajer (1995) and Sharp and Richardson (2001) (for the original sheet see Appendix 4). Analysis was consistent with wider discourse analysis, in that it was qualitative in style; recognising that traditional content analysis approaches are primarily concerned with frequency rather than agency (Richardson, 2007), and so ignore context (Lindlof, 1995). This meant that to avoid analytical prescription the development of codes was left open (Crang, 2001). Although an overall qualitative approach to analysis was adopted it is important to note that this still considers with the repetitiveness of concepts, and thus reference will be made to frequency of themes in subsequent discussions. 4.4 FOCUS GROUPS 4.4.1 Sample Some small-scale focus group based studies on general public engagement and interpretation of CCS have been undertaken (Bradbury et al., 2009; Gough et al, 2002; Reiner, 2008). In the spirit of a more inclusive approach to decision-making, participants were recruited following a ‘snowballing’ pattern, whereby individuals and encouraged to invite acquaintances to participate (Bedford and Burgess, 2001), this resulted in a total of 36 participants of backgrounds varying in terms of employment and nationality. Six 90 minute groups were undertaken, each with six participants. The geographical spread was limited to two locations – London and Leeds, and participants were aged between 22 and 65 (see Appendix 5 for data on focus groups), thus it is clear that this is not a representative sample of the UK population. The case study nature of focus group research is recognised; there is no aim to be statistically representative and it is the ‘depth’ and ‘richness’ of the method that make it valuable (Valentine, 2001). 4.4.2 Data gathering and analysis Focus groups were semi-structured and open-ended. Following Krueger’s (1998) questioning route a series of questions and activities were outlined, and the basic 28. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 structure remained the same for each group (see Table 2 and Appendix 6 for actual outline). As there is little public knowledge about CCS, it was important to set discussions in a wider context. Although questions were pre-set follow up routes were left open ended. In addition, care was taken when constructing questions as it is acknowledged that “when overall knowledge is lacking, question wording can be more likely to skew results” (Malone et al., 2010:421). Questions were piloted prior to undertaking the groups which helped to identify overlaps and contradictions, particularly concerning the ordering of questions, as in contexts where information is being provided it is important to gain rapport and trust with the participants (Earl and Cvetkovich,1999). The role of the moderator was essential as, characteristic of semistructured focus groups, participants were given scope to steer the conversation (Silverman, 2006), but required some guidance to ensure that the topics were covered. Question Type (after Krueger, 1998) Aim (after Krueger, 1998) Question Aim of specific question Opening Introduce each other and get acquainted Introduce self and say where get info on way climate change is being addressed Make people feel comfortable Introductory Moves onto key questions Climate change solutions Introduces a critical look at climate change solutions CCS information sources Introduces CCS Involvement in climate change policy decisions Assesses level of engagement in policy, and barriers to involvement Positives and negatives of CCS Encourages critical thinking on the technology and assesses level of concern Transition Key Moves smoothly into key questions Obtains insight on areas of central concern 29. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 Statements on CCS matching exercise Ending Brings discussion to a close Assesses importance of language in presenting info Looks at relationship between language and organisations Looking at list of organisations Assessing relative trust in organisations and what effects that trust Can technology solve climate change Summarises discussions Table 2: Overview of focus group questions (after Krueger, 1998) Each focus group was transcribed verbatim (for an extract see Appendix 7, full transcripts available on request), with pseudonyms allocated to each participant to ensure confidentiality. This transcription allowed for line-to-line coding, and therefore the subsequent levels of coding were open to revision and amendments to properly represent the data (Jackson, 2001). As texts become the body of analysis in discourse analysis (Alba-Juez, 2009) it follows that the same process be applied to both parts of the analysis. The coded data was drawn together in a ‘discursive’ for each group (Bedford and Burgess, 2001; Jackson, 2001; Kneale, 2001), then extended across groups which allowed cross-referencing and grouping of codes (Crang, 2001). 4.5 POSITIONALITY The overall practice of discourse analysis involves reflexivity on the part of the researcher (Myerson and Rydin, 1998; Sharp and Richardson, 2001). As focus groups provide rich data both in terms of content and context it is important not to overlook one in favour of the other; especially as the material is fragmented through transcribing and coding (Crang, 2001). The dynamic of the groups was, therefore, considered in the transcription, coding and analysis. 30. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 5.0. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 ‘OFFICIAL’ The first part of this study was concerned with examining dominant framings of CCS within ‘official’ circles and how CCS is presented as a particular solution for climate change. 5.1.1 Themes Figure 3 (see next page) summarises the distribution of themes for each group of actors. For the NGOs the divergence of documents meant that the assignment of codes was hard thus they are not graphically presented. Common themes between all groups were those of CCS as ‘part of a solution’, a ‘leadership’ opportunity and a focus on ‘uncertainties’, although these were framed in different ways. Government publications shift from a wider focus on the UK’s leadership on CCS to focus on internal business competition aimed at the creation of a CCS industry. Following the creation of DECC in 2008 a much more detailed approach seems to have been adopted which considers weaknesses and opportunities for collaboration. The most recent publications, coinciding with the relaunch of the CCS Competition, adopt a positive tone, based in innovation and the potential that CCS has to play in future climate change policy. Such patterns of optimism are similar to those identified by Vergraght et al. (2011) in their examination of the route to CCS commercialisation in the context of technological innovation development. Temporal patterns were harder to identify in the industry publications, apart from recognition that themes were more diverse prior to 2010. Whether this is coincidence, a transfer of interest from industry to political circles, or a result of wider contextual factors within BP’s remit, like the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, is not possible to determine. 31. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 Main themes in government publications on CCS over time period Percentage 100% 80% Uncertainties 60% Cooperation 40% Leadership 20% Innovation 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Part of a solution 2012 Time Main themes in industry publications on CCS over time period Percentage 100% 80% US leadership 60% Innovation 40% Cooperation 20% Part of a solution Business opportunities 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Cautious optimism Time Main themes in newspaper articles on CCS over time period Percentage 100% 80% Gov competence 60% Practicalities 40% Unproven technology 20% Part of a solution 0% Finance 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Leadership Figure 3: Main themes identified in stakeholder documents on CCS 2007-2012 32. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 The relationship that CCS has with climate change differs between stakeholders. The government’s focus is one of positive vision and leadership on addressing the climate change issue. This is however rather measured in the context of the need to reconcile growth, emissions reduction and energy security; a motivation characteristic of ‘ecological modernisation’ in wider environmental policy (Bäckstrand and Lovbrand, 2006). Although, unsurprisingly the industry publications indicated similar patterns of ecological modernisation, the focus was less clearly linked with climate change; rather, there was a focus on the presence of energy on the political agenda and a rise in customer demand and business sense in creating alternative energies and low-carbon technologies. The stress on the importance of ‘doing business’ to determine the best ways to reduce cost, produce better understandings of risk and provide a basis for public engagement, is an even better demonstration of a weak ecological modernisation (Mol and Sonnenfeld, 2000). Ioan et al. (2009) had similar findings in their study of ExxonMobil’s discourse on climate change. Government emphasis on ‘creating’ an industry for CCS as part of the UK’s ‘lowcarbon future’ (DECC, 2012, pers.comm.,9 July) and a focus on the importance of R&D suggest support for this industry based exploration of CCS. NGO publications use climate change as the ultimate framing factor of CCS. Although Greenpeace was initially strongly against the technology, based on their rejection of the building of new coal fired power stations, their outlook became more measured over the time period. Therefore most national NGOs believe that CCS should be pursued in light of the need for an immediate alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear (Johnsson et al., 2009). Media coverage of CCS changes over the time period examined; initially set in the context of climate change and its threat to the planet, it shifts towards the end of the period to a focus on energy security. This change could be in part a result of wider contextual factors such as the publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 which brought the effects of climate change under media scrutiny (Livingston, 2008), the recession, a more measured approach to climate change and the need to bring mitigation efforts in touch with everyday concerns, as well as a better knowledge of the linkages between carbon emissions and climate change. 33. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 The critical focus of the media is, interestingly, not angled at the technology itself, rather at government incompetence and indecision in the face of a shift from the science to the politics of CCS and indeed climate change (Giddens, 2009). The only paper to tell a coherent story across the whole time period was the Guardian (see Figure 4). As readership estimates for the Guardian for 2011-2012 were 2.1% of the UK population (NRS, 2012) in the face of focus group responses (see below) this appears to offer a limitation of the sample in this study. Articles on CCS by newspaper 2007 to 2012 25 Number of Articles 20 15 Guardian/Observer Independent Times 10 Telegraph Mail 5 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Time Figure 4: Coverage of articles on CCS in UK National newspapers 2007-2012 5.1.2 Relationships Both government and industry focus on the creation and promotion of intergovernmental dialogues and collaboration between industry, government, and academia. Government frames this as central to the success of the emerging CCS industry. Making funds available for R&D and innovation projects legitimises the need for such collaborations. BP makes no mention of wider public engagement, however the CCSA state that it is very important, both in terms of acceptance for particular projects and for “convincing the public that CCS is an important climate change mitigation technology – will ensure that the public understands and embraces the need for CCS, creating a positive environment for the development of 34. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 the industry” (CCSA, 2012, pers.comm.13 July). The language here implies a deficit interpretation of people’s understanding of the technology (Hammond and Shackley, 2010) and this might add to difficulties of wider public engagement. The media and NGOs are concerned with the relationships of others. Although NGOs are critical of the relationship between government and industry, particularly regarding new coal fired power stations, this is overshadowed by general concern over uncertainties of the technology itself. Bringing former US President Bush and his promotion of CCS and ‘clean coal’ into the picture, Greenpeace provide ammunition for sceptics (Greenpeace, 2008). Gough et al. (2002) found that Bush’s relationship with CCS became a fundamental reason to distrust the technology amongst the public. The media, in line with typical journalistic norms of blame and debate (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004, 2007; Dunwoody, 1993) is more focused on presenting government incompetence and failures than technical or environmental concerns. Thus, the presentation of particular ‘events’ such as the cancellation of the Longannet CCS, hours after DECC confirmed it was going ahead, encourages the destruction of public trust (Slovic, 1999) in government competence. There are a number of contextual factors that could contribute, such as change of government. In addition, taking newspaper articles out of the wider context through focusing on CCS ignores the wider picture of media coverage. For instance, a quick comparative search revealed four times as many articles containing ‘BP’ and ‘oil spill’ in the headline over the same time period, which would undoubtedly have a role in affecting the image of industry out of the context of CCS. 5.1.3 Language The use of language is important, both within the context of discourse analysis and for its interpretation by the public (see below). The fact that government documents present CCS with a measured tone, focusing on ‘opportunity’ rather than ‘solution’ or ‘fix’, is not surprising as the government is proposing a wide portfolio of ways to combat climate change. Likewise, industry’s positive tone is not surprising in the context of their technological vision. However, their tendency to temper any consideration of alternative, ‘clean’ and ‘green’ energies with the continued need for fossil fuels and the stress on a ‘cautious optimism’ could give the impression of 35. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 protecting business interests or ‘greenwash’ (Lyon and Maxwell, 2011) rather than real commitment, particularly in the eyes of the public or sceptical NGOs. The only document to present CCS in a wholly negative light was ‘False Hope’ (Greenpeace, 2008) which uses dramatic, campaigning language such as the ‘climate crisis’ and the ‘disposal’ of CO2, a term generally associated with nuclear waste, the use of which has been found to have implications for the acceptance of CCS in the US (Palmgren et al, 2004; Reiner and Nuttall, 2009). This is accompanied by powerful imagery found to be important in the presentation of risk related issues (Ferreira et al., 2001); framing discussions on the potential dangers of CCS and coal by pictures of power stations, oil spills, pipelines and clouds of pollution. Interestingly, the sensationalist language associated with the media was not present in the newspaper sample. As Dowd et al. (2012) found in their study of international media coverage on CCS the majority of articles were positive or qualified in tone, preferring to present CCS as a technical, financial or political topic. This is similar to many other NGO documents, which make use of technical analysis, statistics, and in WWF’s case, commissioned work from the Scottish CCS (SCCS) research group, adding legitimacy to their arguments. 5.1.4 CCS as a solution The proposed suite of ‘exciting’ technologies, of which CCS is one, championed by both the government and industry are presented as both making business sense and contributing to climate change mitigation. While this is a technocratic view, it is recognised within both circles that their development does depend on the ingenuity of people through R&D and as creators of technology (Uekoetter, 2004). Within the media the findings are similar to those of vanAlphen (2007), where considerations of the weaknesses of the technology did not overshadow claims to CCS being a part of the solution for climate change. It seems that, although NGOs have previously expressed strong opinions on CCS’s weaknesses, and have reservations about its role in the wider climate change context, they express a similar ‘cautious optimism’. In the context of suppositions on traditional divisions between industry and NGOs associated more generally with nuclear power or fossil fuels, for instance illustrated in the Greenpeace-Shell conflict surrounding the dumping of the Brent-Spar oil 36. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 platform (Grove-White, 1997), such viewpoints introduce complexities which might not be clear at first sight. 5.2 ‘PUBLIC’ This part of the analysis was concerned with what shapes public opinion on, and engagement with, CCS, and what implications this has for the uptake of the technology. 5.2.1 Dynamics of Focus Groups The dynamics within each group differed considerably. Bedford and Burgess (2001) state that in order to minimise differences caused by individual personalities and backgrounds researchers should aim for homogeneity in participants’ background within groups by undertaking screening questionnaires. This was difficult to arrange for technical reasons and a careful moderating style had to be adopted to minimise differences. Different personalities were important as they represent different levels of expertise outlined by Evans and Plow (2007), all of which are important within a discourse. 5.2.2 Climate change solutions Participants identified a full range of options, ranging from technical, such as geoengineering and renewable energy, to individual behavioural change, financial instruments, and radical or wider structural measures: “..it also comes down to economics and the way people spend their money, and the way businesses are run and the way people use everything...something else has to change too” (19C:1589-1593) There was an emphasis on alternatives to the current state of affairs, summed up as recognition that today’s structures are not conducive to addressing the climate change problem. Participants’ overall preference was for behavioural change, which they understood or where the benefit was clear. These behavioural changes were consistently identified as the least likely to succeed as a result of their inability to have a cumulative impact (FG1:17A) or through the difficulty of getting people on board: 37. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 “I put the one that was most likely to have a successful outcome if the public could be persuaded would be reducing the use of fossil fuels and the...carbon footprint, but I think it’s probably the least likely to be accepted...so I put the least likely to succeed as reducing car and plane travel because I just don’t think the public will be convinced” (23E:210-217). This could be considered recognition of the ‘value-action gap’ (Blake, 1999), which, through lack of individual actions raises the importance of technological solutions like CCS. 22.214.171.124 Role of technology Some individuals immediately drew a link between the word ‘solution’ and technology suggesting that the role of technology in making our lives easier is deeply engrained. The function of technology in providing a solution for climate change was actively debated; there was high preference for, and belief in, renewable energy technologies as a technological solution. However the majority of participants did not believe that technological solutions could happen without coincident behavioural change. It seems that, as Gough and Shackley (2006) found in their interview based study, there is an ethical dimension surrounding dislike of a purely technical solution; in a general obligation that people feel towards the environment. This came across as the dislike of “using technological fixes to solve the problems that are pretty much man-made” (23D:2556-2557) and that “technological change actually illustrates the huge arrogance of...our anthropocentric point of view” (23A:2564-2568) which might fix the current problem by creating a new one. This illustrates the social and philosophical context of technology, at the point where human culture and human nature overlap (Grosz, 2005), bringing questions of morality into the debate (Torgerson, 2001). Despite general scepticism of technological geoengineering schemes, labelling them “far-fetched” (19A:67) and “slightly mad” (17F:208), there was still an element of technological optimism (e.g. FG5:23F, FG4:20A). A similar level of technological optimism was apparent in focus groups undertaken by Shackley et al. (2004), whereby participants offered suggestions for the future. This apparent contradiction between faith in current proposals and future possibilities could be characteristic of the ‘wait and see’ mentality attributed to those who believe 38. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 in market forces in the shaping of climate change solutions (Clapp and Dauvergne, 2009). 5.2.3 Knowledge and perception of CCS Some groups included CCS in their list of solutions, a measure of the general level of awareness. As the literature suggests (Ha-Duong et al., 2009; Huijts, 2003), a minority had any detailed knowledge, and several admitted to having heard of it but to not knowing any detail, confirming that CCS “lacks an iconography and a position within mainstream pop culture” (Reiner and Nuttall, 2009:14). 126.96.36.199 Costs and Benefits Several studies have demonstrated that in the absence of local objection, and in the eyes of wider public, opinions on CCS tend to be shaped by framing and ideological viewpoints, such as relationship with climate change (Gough et al., 2002; Nisbet, 2010; Reiner et al., 2008; Shackley et al., 2004), a general dislike of coal as an energy source (Curry et al., 2005; Poortinga et al., 2006; Shackley et al., 2005) or a scepticism towards assumed ‘miracle technologies’ (Huijts et al, 2007; Johnsson et al, 2010; Malone et al, 2010; Shackley et al, 2009). This was present in this study and also extended into the philosophical notion of CCS as a “stop-gap” (19A:465466). This logic, which for some makes it a potentially good short-term solution (FG1:17F, FG2:18F), working with what we already have, both in terms of human behaviour and dependency on fossil fuels, is also seen to distract from wider motivations for behavioural change. Participants did, to some extent, identify the presence of technological risk to both humans and the natural world as a potential disadvantage of the technology: “I would be concerned that it would come out again” (17A:398) “...it does seem to me that there could be repercussions for things that are not necessary human things...sort of ecological things” (19C:508-510). Some individuals were considerably more concerned than others. This did not seem to be linked to expertise, rather a measure of a more critical engagement (Evans and Plow, 2007). In all groups, participants initiated unprompted discussions on its possible risks. This could be seen as a part of living in a ‘risk society’, in which the 39. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 negative consequences are stronger and more publicised than positives (Beck, 1992), more than any real concern for the technology. Reiner and Nuttall (2009) suggest that CCS is seen as ordinary because of the familiarity with CO2 itself, however these focus groups suggested underlying concern for potential local risks is a lack of understanding of the properties of CO2. Some participants debated the properties of the gas and its potential to cause harm (FG5:873-899) in the context of Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) rejections, similar to those outlined by deConinck and Huijts, (2004). The fact that CO 2 storage is to be offshore in the UK was not taken into consideration. It is believed that this will make it less of a concern to the general public (Littlecott, 2012) and some participants acknowledged that: “I don’t think it would be a real danger to people living there, I can’t imagine that, so, it’s more of an environmental question, it’s not really like, a risk question for me” (23F:981-983). The lack of technical knowledge therefore has implications for the interpretation of risk information, and subsequently the role and form of communication that people need. 188.8.131.52 Links with other technologies The assumed harmful nature of CO2 may have been brought about by a tendency to use more familiar technologies, as proxies for CCS. Linkages with nuclear power, shale gas, and landfill were commonplace. The “out of sight, out of mind” mentality (20F:536) coupled with the possibility of future uncertainties is associated with nuclear power, and the lack of information on CCS could be seen as a deliberate act to prevent ‘ripples’ of negative public opinion spreading to CCS (Pidgeon et al., 2003). This was acknowledged; “If I was the CCS Institute I would almost try and avoid nuclear energy and CCS ever coming up in the same conversation, because...for...not...correct reasons it’s almost like tarnished...” (17F:907-909). The sense behind this belief was highlighted by one participant (19E) who did not feel the same concern towards CCS as she did towards fracking, as there is less information available to make a decision, particularly in the media. However, she believed that having more information on CCS might make her “slightly worried about what was 40. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 going on underground...” (19E:604-605). Palmgren et al. (2004) found a similar increase in dislike for the technology with more information. Shackley et al. (2007) however found a gradual increase in acceptance of the technology as more information was provided, suggesting that context plays a part, or that, following initial scepticism, opinions change. 184.108.40.206 Disconnect The general lack of awareness and understanding of CCS illustrates the presence of a ‘mismatch’ between the so called CCS community and the general public, (Stephens et al., 2011). This was expressed as concern for the technical nature of the project: “I just, I guess it might be because I don’t really understand but I don’t know how you’d do it...” (17B:399-400) As well as the political will behind it as a viable climate change solution: “it just seems like a concept at the moment, kind of like, someone’s just come up with the idea of the top of their head...” (17C:322-323). The fact that it has serious political and financial backing, evident in the ‘official’ section, was not clear to these participants when making a judgement on the technology. One expressed a desire for media debate before being able to make a judgement (FG3:19B). This highlights both the importance of the media in providing information to the general public on relatively unknown topics (Dowd et al., 2012), and also potential limitations with the lack of official engagement with the general public on CCS. The disconnect witnessed here could be related to a general lack of faith in organisations desire to deal with climate change. The perception that government departments like DECC are “talking the talk but they are not really walking the walk...” (18F:412-413) or “certainly not doing what they’re supposed to do...” (18E:884) was widely expressed throughout groups. Thus the realisation that CCS was being seriously considered was expressed positively: “if the government were suddenly to actually say they were doing this then that would suddenly mean they were actually doing something as opposed to, saying in the next 41. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 50 years we’re going to do something, which at least would show willing...” (19C:661614). Such perception of government incompetence on climate change action is well documented (Suff, 2011), and suggests that, for many, the urgency of seeing action on climate change is greater than potential risks associated with the technology, especially when it is detached from a particular locality. 5.2.4 Perceptions of Actors 220.127.116.11 Organisations and public perceptions Several studies identify the public perception of actors within the CCS community as a central part of the acceptance of technologies (Shackley et al., 2007). These perceptions, namely trust (Terwel et al., 2009b; Sjoberg, 1999; Vicklund, 2000), become more important when people have less technical knowledge (Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2003). Such a position was recognised by participants, who stated, “I suppose if you know less about it then trust in whose saying it becomes more important...doesn’t it” (20C:812-813). Such positions are particularly important in the case of CCS, as “the primary advocates of CCS, national government and the energy industry, are precisely those least trusted by the public” (Reiner and Nuttall, 2009:13). The most important aspects identified by participants in influencing trust were overall agenda and bias. The perceptions that oil companies were purely after profit was, for many, enough to dismiss them as untrustworthy. However, some participants suggested that in fact they had more instinctive ‘trust’ in oil companies, because they were under more scrutiny (FG3:17F), had more to lose from investing in CCS (FG4:19B) or in some cases, because they “trust them to be horrible crooks” (20E:950). This suggests that clarity in message has an important part to play. Similar debates arose surrounding trust in NGOs, whereby some participants immediately stated that they would have more trust in charities because of their focus on “overall benefit” (17A:540) and “protecting the earth, and protecting ecology and wildlife agenda” (19E:1002). Others however saw their “campaigny and in your face” (17F:551) attitude, as an agenda in the same way as that of oil companies, decreasing the overall efficacy of their message. Whether participants trusted what 42. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 NGOs were saying or not they believed that “ you know where you stand with them” (23A:1494), and this, accompanied by their perceived aim for transparency and reliance on public acceptance for support (e.g.20F:967-968) results in, if not trust, a respect which few give to industry. The difficulty of reconciling transparency with the need for confidentiality on the part of private firms has been identified as a particular deficit in the case of CCS by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC, 2009; Terwel et al., 2009a). Complexities surrounding CCS are compounded by the fact that it is not clear which actors would be pro or against the technology. The fact that both industry and environmental NGOs show a similar ‘cautious optimism’ towards the technology surprised participants (see above). This revealed an implicit lower level of trust in oil companies. One participant stated: “if BP was promoting some sort of renewable energy, I guess you’d probably think that maybe they’re trying to make money out of it, but almost, if they’re saying something that’s not what they normally say then you think maybe, well either maybe it’s true, or maybe something fishy’s going on that we don’t know about...” (18C:858862) Similarly: “...I would be like sceptical of Shell and BP...of having any involvement in it...especially if they were saying, carbon capture’s great and its going to like, solve climate change, I would immediately question as to whether it’s a good thing” (17C:562-567). Conversely, on realising that NGOs were not ultimately against CCS they felt that they had done them a disservice (FG1:17F:782), or that they should reconsider their opinion of the technology (FG5:23B:2204-2205). It seems that peoples’ preconceptions of organisations are challenged as underlying organisational values do not appear to align with their position on CCS. If, as Poortinga and Pidgeon (2003) suggest people rely to some extent on clear articulation of values for judgement of situations, then this might be a considerable limitation. The lack of consideration of technical ability as a measure of trust in focus groups suggests that people tend to rely on social values when making judgements (Mabon, 43. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 2012; Slovic, 1999). Past experience comes to bear here, and several participants stated that inherent distrust in oil companies was present as a result of events like the Gulf of Mexico oil spill; “you can’t trust BP and Shell that have destroyed so much...”(23B:1396). This demonstration of the ‘asymmetry principle’ (Slovic, 1993; 1999) illustrates how trust takes time to be built but can be destroyed immediately by an unfortunate event, attaching stigma to the organisation or technology (Flynn et al., 2001). However, in this particular case the mistrust was seen to go deeper: “because of the issue, that they have been major players in the actual bringing about of climate change, and therefore, in that respect I just have less faith...” (19A:13181320). 18.104.22.168 Implications of language The overarching opinion was that either overly positive or negative language was not conducive to persuading participants about CCS. The use of the words ‘smokescreen’ and ‘exciting’ with respect to CCS were dismissed as ‘scare tactics’ (e.g.17F:479) and ‘propaganda’ (e.g.20D:715, 19F:806) respectively. The fact that DECC referred to the technology as ‘exciting’ (DECC, 2012, pers.comm.,9 July) justified many people’s underlying caution towards the government and their “flavour of the month” (17E:605) approach to policy. Thus, strongly worded statements, particularly when unaccompanied by concrete facts, were associated with underlying agenda. People did not like being given reasons to support or reject CCS; recognising that there is a difference between ‘selling’ and ‘convincing’ people about the technology. They wanted to be presented with factual information which allowed them to come to their own conclusion about it. As deConinck and Bäckstrand (2011) state, and the ‘official’ analysis illustrated, advocates of CCS, such as governments and industry, do not have the independence to present a neutral image of the technology. The fact that strongly worded information generally elicited such responses could provide insight into the way that engagement with the public should be undertaken in this context. Additionally it raises questions as to the assumed inability for members of the public to separate ‘facts’ and ‘values’ (Irwin, 1995; Irwin and Michael, 2003), suggesting that, at least in the context of this sample, people see the presentation of unbiased facts as a crucial part of decision making. 44. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 The desire for balanced and qualified information is compounded in a belief that the most trustworthy bodies for providing information on CCS are university research institutes because they are seen to “objectively analyse” (31F:1400) the topic, despite concern over the origin of funding (e.g. FG5:23A, FG4:20D, FG6:31D). Interestingly, a similar level of trust was levelled at the Guardian newspaper, where, what initially seemed to be caution towards the media in many cases turned into unconditional trust: “...actually I trust everything the Guardian says...” (17F:583-584). This is clearly a measure of bias in the sample, but the fact that the Guardian was identified as the only newspaper which had a coherent depiction of CCS (see above) could be deemed reassuring in this context. 5.2.5 Involvement in climate change mitigation policy Much has been made of the need to engage the public more widely in policy making (Eden, 1996; Wesselink et al., 2011), and as discussions in chapter 3 show it is increasingly assumed as part of involvement in wider environmental governance (Princen, 1994). It is interesting to note, therefore, that in the case of CCS participants were rather dismissive of opportunities for involvement. In some respects this is one measure of Irwin and Michael’s (2003) ‘discourses of ignorance’, whereby people feel either that they are not capable of getting involved or that the responsibility of deciding what to do about climate change lies with someone else: “I mean there are people, they do their thing. I do mine, and you know, of course I’m interested in what they do, but you know, I’ve got...I’ve got my own issues” (18B:1153-1156) “people better informed than myself are dealing with it...” (31D:1000). The power of business, financial and in some cases political interests are seen as eclipsing any impact that individuals have, and although they recognise the potential for purchasing habits or voting patterns to make a difference in the long run there is general agreement that public opinion is itself too biased: “because the public don’t know what they’re talking about and if they get the wrong idea from the media, or from a different lobbying group who don’t have the right opinion, then it’s a bit dangerous...who don’t have a measured an balanced and informed opinion...” (17A:837-840) 45. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 “how do we involve the public in a country like Britain, does it mean what The Sun newspaper thinks?...” (20A:1391-1392). Thus, there is recognition that public involvement in policy decisions on ultimately technical matters complicates the picture: “I think there can be a real problem getting things done” (20A:1390), preventing the best technical decision from being made (Löfstedt, 2005). There is an apparent contradiction here, as participants stated; “I like to think that I would have the opportunity to have an opinion, I wouldn’t want it to be assumed that I wouldn’t want to have an opinion...” (17B:862-863), through “being made aware and made to feel part of the process...” (18A:1162). Equally, they admitted that they might be more inclined to have a say if it was something they deemed “destructive and invasive that had big negatives that people were capable of understanding” (17A:859-860). Not only does this suggest that the technical nature of CCS makes it a difficult technology to engage with, it implies that people do not see it as a great threat. It seems that the same ‘high-consequence risks’ (Giddens, 1991:4) that are discussed in relation to nuclear for instance are not perceived for CCS. Similarly, Gough (2007) found that 74% of their survey respondents believed that risks associated with CCS would be much less than nuclear. Indeed one participant stated that they would feel more inclined towards making themselves heard over nuclear or fracking than CCS and that they felt detached from the technology until they were to witness an increase in energy prices as a result, a finding also evident in Shackley et al. (2004). The focus groups yielded a lot of insight into the ways people start to form opinions about CCS. People’s opinion were shaped by a mixture of social and to a lesser extent technological factors, perception of the actors promoting CCS, through comparison with technologies and its perceived ability to offer a ‘fix’ for climate change. In addition, such discussions suggest that the apparent lack of engagement with wider public on CCS might not be a problem. Furthermore, the tendency to question the technology, the need for unbiased information, technical information and statistics above might be no more than ‘pseudo’ or ‘cursory’ opinions (ACCAT, 2009; Malone et al., 2010) brought about by the context of focus groups. That said, whether wider involvement in the implementation of CCS is required or not, the 46. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 public want someone that they trust to make decisions on their behalf and they need to be involved in defining who this is (FG3:19F). As Löfstedt (2005) suggests where trust exists then top-down decision making is not necessarily a bad thing. As evidence above shows, in the context of CCS, the difficulties of reconciling the dominant parties with wider public trust might be where the tensions lie. 47. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 6.0. CONCLUSION This study aimed to examine the construction of a discourse around the technology of CCS, looking particularly at its portrayal as a ‘technological solution’ for climate change. It finds, like Stephens et al. (2011), that no stakeholders preclude the consideration of CCS as a climate change mitigation option. The government’s preoccupation with the promotion of success leads to a less nuanced viewpoint (Buehler et al., 2005). Industry recognises the need to present facts in a light that does not exaggerate success, perhaps in recognition of their need to preserve their corporate integrity in light of external criticism. This certainly seems to have been a major player in the definition of CCS amongst the public in this study; perceptions of the actors themselves are deemed more important than having technical knowledge. It is a general disenchantment with those who promote it, whether industry or the government, that lies behind any scepticism towards the technology. Likewise, this disenchantment, made prominent by actions of NGOs and the media, could be said to be behind overall acceptance, or at least not rejection, of CCS, in light of failure to advance on emissions reduction commitments. The results from this study contribute to research on the social implications of technological solutions for climate change, and climate change mitigation more generally. In addition it adds to the growing body of literature on CCS and interactions between different bodies of stakeholders in this context. Malone et al. (2010) express concerns over the tendency for social research on CCS to make conclusions beyond the scope of the study. It is recognised that the sample size of both elements of this study make it a case-study in nature and extending it in all directions would be a natural next step. In addition, the focus on climate change ‘solutions’ is a problematic angle to take, as utilising it within public discussions implies that people feel that climate change is a problem that needs addressing in the first place. Although this was made explicit in the focus groups, it is recognised that wider opinions might differ greatly. Finally, in examining CCS as a solution in isolation it perhaps places an over emphasis on its importance. It is clear from the work undertaken that government, industry and NGOs alike support a wide range of initiatives to address climate change. This can in turn be a criticism angled at any 48. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 study undertaken in this area. Despite such limitations, the results of this study provide some interesting insights. 6.1 CONSTRUCTION OF A DISCOURSE In considering the construction of discourse surrounding CCS in both ‘official’ and ‘public’ arenas focus has been on particular ‘discourse coalitions’ between actors (Hajer, 1995), and the nature of their arguments or conversations. It is clear that these discourses are formed by combining technical understanding and expertise, with social beliefs of both organisations and individuals and their relationship with wider institutional cultures. Such deliberations are equally applicable to the ‘official’ and ‘public’ arenas, and the interrelations between them are perhaps the most important and interesting of all. Figure 5 (next page) adds these findings to the initial conceptual framework in the context of this study. 49. Examining discourses on Carbon Capture and Storage 1142521 Figure 5: Conceptual model incorporating findings of this study Scientific community International governance regimes Environmental Groups Fossil fuel National industry Government Ideological: Worldview Media ‘protecting the world’; ’arrogance’; ‘pursuit of profit’ Systems: Social reasoning comparison with other technologies; ethics; perception of actors ‘Official’ arena Situation: location Warrant: Importance Data Technical Verification Decision taking into account wider context location justification – local, national, global climate change; energy security; business sense Purely technical decision Conclusion s 50. 1142521 The disproving of assumptions that different actors would present conflicting views towards CCS stresses the importance of looking beyond the obvious when coming to decisions about such a technology. General optimism, or at least not outright rejection, towards the technology is confusing to the public, as organisations do not perform the functions that they are expected to. On the surface, the dominant frames for CCS are climate change mitigation and economic benefits (Markusson et al., 2011), however in reality the differences lie deeper, in the motivation and ‘ideology’ surrounding support for the technology, and it is this which determines the overall discourse of which they are a part; whether this be one of “protecting the planet” or “arrogant” technological fixes. People are naturally suspicious of actors that they feel are for or against a technology when they would not normally be, the fact that this is dependent on the behaviour, past actions of, and ultimately trust in the organisation suggests that these ideological frameworks are often imposed by the public on ‘official’ actors in order to make it easier for them to come to their own decisions. People weigh these elements up with the technical information they are provided with, thus Fischer’s (2004) irrationalities in decision-making play a central role in the acceptance of the technology. This in itself is a fundamental illustration of the social construction of a technology. 6.2 TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION / TECHNOLOGICAL FIX This study has shown that although CCS is presented as a ‘solution’ by several groups of actors its claim to be a ‘fix’ is limited. All actors recognise the inability for there to be a ‘mythical silver bullet’ (Bäckstrand et al., 2011:279) for climate change and as such it is presented as a part of a wider solution. Discussions suggest that people do not generally desire a ‘fix’, preferring attitude change to technology as a solution for climate change, or at least a combination of both. Ackerman (2004) believes that part of a ‘technological fix’ is imaginary or visionary rather than reality, and, as such, the apparent feeling that CCS represents a ‘fix’ for our behaviour rather than climate change could underline much of the resentment and suspicions felt towards it. Government endorsement of the technology through the creation of a ‘technological race’ for CCS projects strengthens this view in a way that pushes other options aside (Gough and Mander, 51. 1142521 2012). Disengagement with the government could relate to this, linked to a personal conflict between desire for a solution to climate change and human accountability and moral obligation to change behaviour. Although this is undoubtedly a measure of the sample, as well as the context of focus group research, it is not a limitation as such, as it highlights the highly constructed and individualistic nature of discussions surrounding technology. The possible policy implications of this study should be considered. As discussed in this paper there is debate on the extent to which people should be involved in technical decisions surrounding CCS. The findings suggest that the mismatch identified between ‘official’ interest and ‘public’ awareness and knowledge of CCS is not as problematic as it could be. In turn there is unlikely to be a large body of negative public opinion surrounding CCS. The fact remains that no large scale implementation of CCS has been undertaken in the UK and, as a result, developments in the next few years will provide further telling insight in this area. Despite this, if wider engagement is to take place, ‘official’ actors should be careful to take into account the tendency people have to weigh up the following: importance of technology, authority of organisation, emotional appeal and in particular its links with other technologies and worldview or ideology. Thus, as many studies in this area have shown, the provision of technical information is secondary to a range of social and ideological considerations. This, in itself, suggests that communication efforts which rely solely on provision of technical information are likely not to have the desired effect. Most importantly this study illustrates that applying a universal model of communication and engagement does not work for every technology or at every scale. An interesting extension, or indeed parallel study, would be to undertake a similarly structured investigation in the context of a specific CCS project in the UK once they are announced, making use of local newspapers as well as communications from industry and local environmental groups. This would provide empirical insight into the topic on a local scale and it is expected that the outcomes of, and motivations for, decisions would be very different. Ultimately the irrationalities, emotions and ideological viewpoints that play a part in the construction of discourses surrounding CCS remind us that the consideration of technologies in all circles, industry, politics, wider civil society and the public is a social process, and 52. 1142521 that overlooking this completely in pursuit of the ultimate technical solution will likely do more harm than good. 53. 1142521 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: ETHICAL APPROVAL AND RISK ASSESSMENT Dear Jasmine Livingston, KCL/11-12_803 The �technological fix� as a climate change solution: Perceptions of official pronouncements on carbon capture and storage and renewable technologies I am pleased to inform you that full approval for your project has been granted by the GGS Research Ethics Panel. Any specific conditions of approval are laid out at the end of this email which should be followed in addition to the standard terms and conditions of approval: - Ethical approval is granted for a period of one year from the date of this email. You will not receive a reminder that your approval is about to lapse so it is your responsibility to apply for an extension prior to the project lapsing if you need one (see below for instructions). - You should report any untoward events or unforeseen ethical problems arising from the project to the panel Chairman within a week of the occurrence. Information about the panel may be accessed at:http://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/ethics/applicants/sshl/panels/. - If you wish to change your project or request an extension of approval you will need to submit a new application with an attachment indicating the changes you want to make (a proforma document to help you with this is available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/ethics/applicants/modifications.html). - All research should be conducted in accordance with the King's College London Guidelines on Good Practice in Academic Research available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/index.php?id=247&searched=good+practice&ad vsearch=allwords&highlight=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1+ajaxSearch_highli ght2 If you require signed confirmation of your approval please forward this email to [email protected] indicating why it is required and the address you would like it to be sent to. Please would you also note that we may, for the purposes of audit, contact you from time to time to ascertain the status of your research. We wish you every success with this work. With best wishes Yours Sincerely, GGS Reviewer 54. 1142521 55. 1142521 56. 1142521 APPENDIX 2: FURTHER DETAIL ON TYPES OF CCS Post-Combustion Capture CO2 is removed from the flue gases by a process called ‘scrubbing’. It is dissolved in a low temperature amine solvent which is then heated and the CO2 removed. The solvent is recycled and reused. CO2 is compressed and transported to the storage location. Pre-Combustion Capture The fossil fuel used in the industrial process is gasified to give a gas made up of CO and H2. Steam is added which instigates the following chemical reaction: CO+H2O ⇌ CO2+H2 Removing the CO2 from the products means that a hydrogen rich fuel gas is left. As there is no heat needed to remove CO2 from the solvent as with post-combustion the energy use is much lower. The efficiency of the process is less though and therefore using currently available technologies post-combustion is currently a cheaper option. Oxyfuel Capture The fuel is burnt in pure oxygen which produces a flue gas of mostly CO2, with some water vapour. This makes separation for compression much easier, despite in situations where coal is the fossil fuel then nitrogen and sulphur oxides also need to be removed. The process of creating oxygen is uncompetitive and the process requires the design of new turbines. If the initial investment is made, however, this process is seen to be efficient and cost-effective. 57. 1142521 APPENDIX 3: FULL LIST OF DOCUMENTS FOR DOCUMENT ANALYSIS Government HM Government Clean Coal: An industrial strategy for the development of CCS across the UK (2010) The Carbon Plan: Delivering our Low Carbon Future (2011) DTI A Strategy for Developing Carbon Abatement Technologies for Fossil Fuel Use (2005) BERR UK CCS – Demonstration Project Industry Day Presentation (2007) Competition for a CCS Demonstration Project: Project Information Memo (2007) Towards Carbon Capture and Storage: A Consultation Document (2008) DECC Impact Assessment of the Carbon Capture Readiness requirements (2009) Carbon Capture Readiness Guidance (2009) Impact Assessment of Coal and CCS Requirements in ‘A framework for the development of clean coal’ (2009) A Consultation on the Proposed Offshore Carbon Dioxide Storage Licensing Scheme (2009) Towards CCS: Government Response to Consultation (2009) DECC Guidance for EU Funding Mechanism ‘NER300’ for Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration Projects (2010) UK CCS Commercial Scale Demonstration Programme (2010) A study to explore the potential for CCS business clusters in the UK (2010) CO2 Storage in the UK – Industry Potential (2010) Energy Security & Green Economy Bill: CCS Assistant Schemes (2010) How the Office of Carbon Capture & Storage will drive delivery in the UK (2010) DECC Science Advisory Group Briefing Note on Carbon Capture and Storage (2011) Energy Act 2011: Carbon Capture and Storage Reuse of Infrastructure (2011) Energy Act 2011: Aid Memoire (2011) Planning our Electric Future: A White Paper for secure, affordable and low-carbon electricity (2011) nd Minutes of the fourth DECC CCS Development Forum held on 2 November 2011 (2011) One North Sea: Joint Ministerial Statement on Climate Change and Energy Security (2011) Energy Bill 2012-13: Emissions Performance Standard Aide Memoire (2012) Energy Bill 2012-13: Renewables Obligation (RO) Transitional Arrangements Aide Memoire (2012) Second Session Energy Bill Aide Memoire (2012) The CCS Roadmap (2012) CCS Innovation Competition FAQs (2012) CCS Innovation Competition £20m Competition Call (2012) CCS Roadmap: Innovation and R&D (2012) CCS Roadmap: Regulatory Framework (2012) CCS Roadmap: Skills and Support (2012) CCS Roadmap: Storage Strategy (2012) CCS Roadmap: Transport and Storage Infrastructure (2012) th Letter from DECC Correspondence Unit to Jasmine Livingston, dated 9 July 2012 Industry BP Energy Outlook 2030, London, (2012) Press releases and speeches all available from www.bp.com [accessed 28/08/12], search ‘carbon capture’ st Answer Sheet from Carbon Capture and Storage Association, dated 31 July 2012 WWF Evading Capture: Is the UK Power Sector ready for carbon capture and storage? NGO 58. 1142521 (2008) Carbon Choices – Options for demonstrating carbon capture and storage in the UK power sector (2009) Press releases and online articles available from http://www.wwf.org.uk/search_results.cfm?searchText=Carbon+Capture+ [accessed 16/07/12] Friends of the Earth Briefing Note: Carbon Capture and Storage (2005) Press releases and online articles available from http://www.foe.co.uk/ [accessed 16/07/12] search ‘carbon capture’ Greenpeace False Hope: Why CCS won’t save the climate (2008) Press releases all available from http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/search/node/carbon%20capture%20and%20storage th [accessed 16 July 2012] Joint Statements Joint Statement on CCS (Greenpeace, FoE, WWF and RSPB) (2008) Joint Statement on coal CCS (Greenpeace, FoE, WWF, RSPB, Oxfam, Christian Aid, World Development Movement) (2009) CCS Value for Money (WWF and RSPB) (2010) Media Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/search/homesubmitForm.do search terms ‘carbon capture’ in headline [accessed 25/08/12] 59. 1142521 APPENDIX 4: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS SHEET Document / Event: Author: Date: What is the purpose of the document? Context Tone/metaphor: How does the document present CCS? Framing of CCS: Positive Negative: Qualified: Use of data: How does the document view interactions with other stakeholders? Interactions: Framing: 60. 1142521 APPENDIX 5: FOCUS GROUP DETAILS No. FG1 FG2 FG3 FG4 FG5 FG6 Pseudonyms Date and Location Time 17A London 17B Tuesday 17C 17th July 17D 2012 17E 17F 6.30pm 18A London 18B Wednesday 18C 18th July 18D 2012 18E 18F 6.30pm Gender Mix 3xM 3xF Professional Age Background range 4 x Engineer 22 – 34 2 x Admin 5xM 1xF 2 x Finance 1 x Gov 1 x Engineer 1x Performer 1 x Admin 26-36 19A 19B 19C 19D 19E 19F 20A 20B 20C 20D 20E 20F 23A 23B 23C 23D 23E 23F 31A 31B 31C 31D 31E 31F Leeds 2xM 4xF 2 x Student 3 x Admin 1 x Finance 22-56 Leeds 2xM 4xF 1 x IT 2x Education 2 x Retired 1 x Medicine 26-65 London 2xM 4xF 5 x Student 1 x Finance 24-30 London 2xM 4xF 4 x Student 1 x Admin 1 x Journalist 24-27 Thursday 19th July 2012 7.00pm Friday 20th July 2012 7.00pm Monday 23th July 2012 7.00pm Tuesday 31st July 2012 7.00pm 61. 1142521 APPENDIX 6: OUTLINE OF FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS INTRODUCTION: 3 minutes 3 minutes INTRODUCTORY QUESTION: 3 minutes 6 minutes QUESTION 1: 10 minutes 16 minutes Firstly I am going to ask you to come up with a list of so called climate change ‘solutions’ options that you are aware of, these can be as specific or general as you want. One of you will need to write them down, so here is a pen and some paper. I’m going to give you about 3 minutes for this.... UNDERTAKING GROUP EXERCISE: 3 minutes Thank you for that. Now I would like you to have a look at these and consider which one of these you feel is likely to be the most successful and the one which is the least likely, and also which one you feel a preference towards. You can write these in the boxes 1, 2 and 3 on the answer sheet in front of you. INDIVIDUAL ANSWERS: 2 minute Has everyone had time to do that? What have you chosen and why? Prompts: - What about it makes you think it will succeed / not succeed? Why is this a preferable solution? DISCUSSION: 5 minutes QUESTION 2: 10 minutes 26 minutes Part of my dissertation is focusing on a particular technology called Carbon Capture and Storage which I notice you included / you didn’t include. Can you describe what it is to the others / does anyone have any idea what it is? ANSWER: 1 minute OR So with this in mind, I’m going to give you a series of different explanations of CCS and I’d like you to have a look at them all. I’m going to give you about 3 minutes for this. READING EXTRACTS: 3 minutes (or 4 minutes if they didn’t answer the above question) Which one do you feel is the most convincing? Prompts: - Why do you think this? Are there any that you feel are particularly bad / good? Would you need further information after reading them – in a standalone capacity / together? 62. 1142521 DISCUSSION: 6 - 7 minutes QUESTION 3: 5 minutes 31 minutes Now you have a bit of an idea about the technology of CCS, what do you imagine the biggest benefits of the technology to be? And the negatives? Prompts: - Why do you think this is a problem? Who is it likely to effect? Are you personally concerned about this? DISCUSSION: 5 minutes QUESTION 4: 10 minutes 41 minutes Now we’re going to move on to looking at what information is provided on technologies such as CCS and the organisations who provide this information. I’m going to give you a sheet with various statements that different organisations have made on the technology. I’d like you have a look through and group these into those that you feel are more likely to influence your opinion and less likely to influence your opinion of CCS (I know some of you might already have formed opinions about it but if you could put these to one side for a minute). I’m going to give you a few minutes to discuss this and then we’ll come back and talk about it. UNDERTAKING INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE: 4 minutes Why did you make this decision? Prompts: What is it about this particular statement that makes it more believable? How does the use of language shape your opinion of it? Does it make you want to know more? Do you think trust is important in the success of a technology? DISCUSSION: 6 minutes QUESTION 5: 10 minutes 51 minutes Now I’m going to give you a series of organisations from which these statements came from, and I would like you as a group consider which of these you feel you have the most trust in. Don’t worry if you don’t agree with each other, we will talk about this in a minute. UNDERTAKING GROUP EXERCISE: 3 minutes Did anyone disagree with the consensus that you came to in your group? Why did you come to this decision? Prompts: 63. 1142521 Why do you feel that this organisation is more trustworthy than this one? What factors do you consider when assessing how trustworthy an organisation is? Do you think that your opinion on this would be similar to others? DISCUSSION: 7 minutes QUESTION 6: 10 minutes 61 minutes Now I would like you to, again as a group, try and match the organisations with the statements that we looked at before, use the same sheet as previously and put it in the last column. UNDERTAKING GROUP TASK: 4 minutes All finished? Why did you make these decisions? So these are the actual answers. Does this change your initial opinion of the statements at all? Prompts: Are you surprised with the outcomes? Would this change your opinion of 1) the organisation, 2) the technology? DISCUSSION: 6 minutes QUESTION 7: 5 minutes 66 minutes The final area that I want to cover is to do with decisions that are made about climate change mitigation options. Who do you feel has an influence on policy decisions made about climate change? Prompts: Whose interests do you feel policy decisions take into account? How important do you feel it is for the public to be involved in policy decisions on climate change? What are the barriers to your engagement in policy decisions on climate change mitigation? DISCUSSION: 5 minutes QUESTION 8: 5 minutes 71 minutes And as a final thought I would like to ask you, do you think that technology can ‘solve’ climate change? Prompts: What do you think is a better solution? Do you think it is the only way forward? SUMMARY: 4 minutes 75 minutes 64. 1142521 Now I would like to draw this discussion to a close and to do this I will attempt to summarise the main points you raised... Does that seem accurate? Have we missed anything? EXTRA: 5 minutes 80 minutes So to draw this all to a close, have you any further comments you would like to make or questions that you would like to raise? TOTAL RUNNING TIME: 80 minutes 65. 1142521 APPENDIX 7: EXAMPLE FOCUS GROUP TRANSCRIPT 19TH JULY FOCUS GROUP TRANSCRIPT – Extract Me: So just to finish this section, do you think trust is important in the success of a technology, so either trust in the organisations who are promoting it, or in the technology itself? 19C: I think definitely in everything, and whoever telling you about it as well...yeah 19A: Yeah 19E: Just the research which has gone in beforehand, before they’ve got to the point of talking about introducing it Me: Anyone else? 19B: I think so, in some ways, as distrusting I am of governments, for some reason I would be happier to see a government pick up on the back of strong research and follow that through because I think that would probably benefit the public more, and also bring the public in as a stakeholder in some ways, rather than if it was some, a specialist industry who had brought it in and were trying to sell it...but yeah, I think trust is very important, I think people would trust it because they are stakeholders, would probably trust the whole thing, the process more so.... Me: OK, with that in mind I’m going to give you a series of organisations, I have two sets. Does everyone know who all of these organisations are? Most of them say... 19C: They are pretty self-explanatory Me: Yeah 19B: I don’t know Statoil but I can guess... 19E: Is that an American one, Statoil? Me: It’s a Norwegian oil company 19E: OK Me: I’d like you to consider which ones of these you would have the most trust in... 19D: I like all the charity ones [laughs] 19E: Are we supposed to be doing something in this box? Me: No, not yet, maybe try and all talk together otherwise it gets a bit hard to hear 19B: Jasmine, is this trust in the companies, or trust regarding this particular issue? Me: In the companies in general, but imagining they might say something about it. 66. 1142521 19F: I guess a lot of them have got their own agendas apart from maybe research...really research based ones, I would say, coming from a science background 19E: I would trust the Guardian... [laughs] 19E:...and I would trust the... 19D: The Uni 19A: I would trust the Uni the most... [agreement] 19E: Greenpeace and the WWF and FoE really Me: So everyone apart from the oil companies really? 19A: Yes 19E: Well I feel they have a protecting the earth, and protecting ecology and wildlife agenda which... 19C: I think probably I probably would trust the DECC Me: You would? 19C: Yeah 19F: But aren’t they...politicians basicically, so not to be trusted [laughs] 19A: Well I’d say the academic one was the most neutral... 19D: Yeah, exactly 19A:..it doesn’t have an agenda, but even the Guardian needs to sell papers at the end of the day 19F: Yeah, exactly 19C: But then even in universities funding comes from somewhere and sometimes funding comes from places that aren’t neutral [agreement] 19B: Or a combination 19F: Yeah 19E: Yeah, I think... 67. 1142521 19B: If we had a combination of 2 or 3 of these I think it would probably, it would probably bring a healthier attitude, because they would pretty much act as a watchdog in the competition, because if there is something that somebody else is doing then you might get a better...you might get more for your money, if I can put it in the old adage... 19E: And it’s not saying that BP and Shell don’t also do good things or sponsor good things, but there must be a profit making agenda below that Me: So their agenda is quite important, erm, what factors do you consider when assessing how trustworthy an organisation is? So we’ve had agenda, and... 19D: Like their history, like, I can’t remember which one it was.... 19C: Was it Shell 19D:...with the oil spill...whoever it was BP... 19C: Shell’s really dodgy too [laughs] 19D: It’s like now you wouldn’t trust G4S again, you know what I mean... [laughs] 19D:...they’ve had a bad name so you wouldn’t trust them 19E: And they nearly ran dad down in Nottingham yesterday! Me: How does their logo affect your opinion on them? 19C: Well the panda certainly makes you think, ‘oh they must be trustworthy’ [laughs] 19D: BP Me: Why is that? 19A: Coz they’re nice, pandas 19B: It’s a cultural thing I guess 19D: BP are definitely aware of that because they are trying to change to make themselves look green and flowery... [agreement and laughs] 19E: They were a shield weren’t they... 19D...so they know what they’re playing at 19E:...now they’ve got a flower 68. 1142521 Me: OK, so, each of these organisations said one of these statements, if you could try and match them up that would be good, there are 10 statements and 10 organisations... 19B: Ahhhh, Do we get a prize if we get 10 out of 10 right [laughs] 19E: Not sure I’m going to get any Me: You can talk about it if you want 19A: I thought there were no right or wrong answers [laughs] Me: This is what people keep pointing out... 19C: I feel I’ve been harmed [laughs] 19A: Well I’d say, that the one that are perhaps more negative towards it might be from the oil companies... 19D: I think the last 3 must be from...um...I dunno actually, the one we preferred...are going to be...like, more research based ones 19C: The one about Norway might be the Norwegian oil company [agreement] Me: You’re the first group I’ve given that away to, everyone else... 19E: Been led on, tricked... 19F: I think number 3 is probably the global CCS Institute because they are excited about CCS [laughs] 19F: So maybe number 6 might be the DECC because they are the ones who talk about the government and the EU 19A: It sounds like something boring yeah... [laughs] 19F:...but as for the rest, I don’t know 19C: The ones that are sort of trying to reassure you that it’s OK, like number 4, sound like they might be a charity who has a sort of agenda to look after...things Me: Do you mean the world? 19C: The world, yeah 69. 1142521 19B: I think the last one might be the university actually...I’m not so sure, it just seems to take all of the points of view together, almost 19C: Then in the newspaper, you could have, it depends what the articles about, whether it’s a comment thing, or an actual article about something... 19D: I reckon number 8’s Greenpeace... 19B: I think number 9 is either Shell or BP then 19C: Hmmm, yeah 19A: Yeah, I’d bet good money on that...on the flip side though, maybe...I don’t know... [silence] 19C: And number 3 might be one of the oil companies because it says ‘allowing these coal and gas fired power stations to play a crucial part’ so its, we can sort of carry on 19D: I think number 7’s the DECC, they’re trying to convince us that its ready and available, and can go now 19A: I think number 1 sounds like the kind of thing you would see in a paper, like a headline, in the small little bit... 19B: [under breath] But surely, not in the Guardian.... [laughs] 19A: I’m not saying anything... 19F: Well it is just a quote though, taken from somewhere else... 19C: Actually it does look like the thinks that the Guardian put at the top of their... 19B: But they’re not saying things cause earthquakes surely... [laughs] Me: OK, we’ve got some, I’m going to give you the answers now... 19F: Oh no 19E: I don’t think I’ll have anything right 19D: Yeah, I got the Greenpeace one right [laughs] Me: You actually got more right I think than most of the groups I’ve done... 19C: We didn’t get the last one right though [surprised sounds] 19A: Oh and number 7 was not expected 70. 1142521 Me: So, which ones surprise you? 19C: Number 2 Me: Which ones that? 19C: Which is Imperial College London 19E: Did you get any right? 19D: Yeah, this one Me: Why? 19C: But then I suppose they probably are all quite used to writing personal statements and that’s probably why it sounds like that, I think it just sounded a bit...well non academic sounding I guess.... 19D: Yeah, I’m not sure I trust them anymore 19C: No [laughs] 19A: Number 7 shocks me a bit...that it was BP [silence while looking] Me: Yeah, anymore? 19B: I would imagine for number 7, that BP are doing something on that front already if they say that... Me: Yeah, in the States they do carbon capture 19B: Yeah, I wouldn’t have put them together, but I guess, with the kind of knowledge that these guys have they should be at the forefront of these things 19C: I suppose it’s actually not that surprising that people like BP and Shell will...be, sort of happy to praise this kind of technology, because it lets them carry on what they’re doing and um...which I guess is what Greenpeace are trying to say in number 8 as a ‘smokescreen’ for.... 19A: Yeah me: What about the charities in general, are any of them different to how you imagined? 19E: I got the WWF right, it was the only one apart from Statoil which I got right...the one which was Greenpeace I thought was FoE so I’m quite happy because they’re almost.... [laughs] 19C: I think FoE one... 71. 1142521 19E:...the one I thought was Greenpeace was the Guardian so... 19C:...I think that one’s quite reassuring that they have a quite, that their approach to it is quite measured, so not too emotive or kind of... Me: Does it change your initial opinion of any of these statements, knowing who said them? [silence] 19C: I can’t remember what my initial opinions were... Me: Whether they were convincing or not 19C: Convincing 19E: I might be convinced that it might cause earthquakes... [laughs] 19E:...if the Guardian says it Me: Anyone else got anything to add? 19A: Er, the ones for BP and Shell, I’d be naturally distrusting towards those organisations so I guess knowing who said it changes how I perceive it a bit 19C: I suppose, it...kind of...changes, erm, the way I think of it as a technology, as a sort of more buying time thing then a viable solution if you can see the oil companies saying oh yes, it’s a good idea...maybe that’s very biased Me: So that makes you more sceptical? 19C: More sceptical, yes 19A: Yeah, if they’re behind it, then their sole aim is... 19C: Yeah 19A:...in this is going to be profit, I mean they’re not going to be altruistic in any sense, it’s not in their interest to be 19C: No 19B: But profit is not necessarily a bad thing 19A: In some case it can be but yeah... 19B: But if it, if it’s a large organisation that has 1000s of employees, then if it thinks that if the way the world is going its becoming, shall we say more politically correct in a sense then it would know that it has to see its future in that certain context and I would imagine that they would...I have absolutely know like of BP, where I came from they actually changed the government there... 19A: OK, yeah 72. 1142521 19B:...many many years ago so but...that said, I do think they would I think, but people who would see into the future maybe from a different angle than maybe the governments, given that a lot of the businesses actually control a lot of the politicians in themselves then, in some ways it would be in their interest, I think, to develop something that is viable for the public to use in future, because if there was going to be a huge backlash then they would have a lot to lose, so I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but it is not necessarily a bad thing either, and I think it is important to look at everything with a considerable amount of mistrust but... 19A: Yeah, I mean, I just think, that because of the issue, that they have been major players in the actual bringing about of climate change, and therefore, in that respect I just have less faith in it, but then again... 19B: But they are the people who have, in some ways, something to lose, rather than the Guardian’s of this world don’t have anything to lose they can say what they like, and they can sort of change their mind, change their sort of side if you like, tomorrow, depending on what sort of the way the wind blows, if they wanted to, I’m not saying that’s what they will do...but that will be sort of a simpler choice to make for some organisations that do not have billings and boards I guess so...it is important I think not to trust anybody [laughs] Me: 19F, did you want to say something 19F: I just wanted to say that I was a bit disappointed in the DECC, that that was their statement, because it sounds like it just gives them an excuse to carry on being reliant on fossil fuels... [agreement] 19F:...although, it does say that they will play a ‘crucial part’ so there may have been more to what they were going to say afterwards, but, yeah, it just seems a bit sort of, not very forward looking 19C: And they used the word exciting which none of us liked 19D: No none of us liked that did we 19A: It just looks like something from The Thick of It, like when they’re trying to come up with a catchline... [laughs] Me: Alright, so would it change your opinion of the organisation having read those statements? 19C: I’m disappointed in the Guardian [silence] Me: Anyone? 19B: It definitely makes you read it in a different way, I don’t know if it would change your opinion but it makes you read it... 73. 1142521 19A: Yeah, it makes you question it but I wouldn’t change it all on one statement 74. 1142521 REFERENCES CITED ACCAT, (2009). Accelerating the Deployment of Carbon Abatement Technologies: Special Focus on CCS. London: ACCAT, URN 09/Z108. Ackerman, M., (2004). The Nutritional Enrichment of Flour and Bread: Technological Fix or Half-Baked Solution, in L., Rosner (Ed.), The Technological Fix: How People Use Technology to Create and Solve Problems, Oxford: Routledge, 2004, 65-79. Alba-Juez, L., (2009). Perspectives on Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Allan, S., (2002). Media, Risk and Science, London: Open University Press Alphen, van. K., van Voorst tot Voorst, Q., Hekkert, M.P. and Smits, R, E.H.M., (2007). Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies, Energy Policy, 35(8), 4368-4380 Backstrand, K. and Lovbrand, E., (2006). Planting Trees to Mitigate Climate Change: Contested discourses of Ecological Modernization, Green Governmentality and Civic Environmentalism, Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 50-75. Backstrand, K., Meadowcroft, J., and Oppenheimer, M., (2011). Editorial: The Politics and Policy of Carbon Capture and Storage: Framing an emergent technology, Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 275-281. Bailey, I. and Compston, H., (2010). Geography and the Politics of Climate Policy, Geography Compass, 4(8), 1097-1114. Bailey, I., Gouldson, A. and Newell, P., (2011). Ecological Modernisation and the Governance of Carbon: A Critical Analysis, Antipode, 43(3), 682-703. Barrett, S., (2006). Climate Treaties and ‘Breakthrough’ Technologies, American Economic Review, 96, 22–25 Barrett, S., (2009). The Coming Global Climate–Technology Revolution, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(2), 53-75. Barry, J. and Eckersley, R., (Eds), (2005). The State and the Global Ecological Crisis, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press Beck, U., (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage. Beierle, T.C., Cayford, J., (2002). Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions, RFF Press: Washington, DC. 75. 1142521 BERR, (2007). Talking Energy: The Future of Nuclear Power, [Online] available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file53467.p df [accessed 29 August 2012] Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the 'value-action gap' in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience, Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 4(3), 257–278. Blühdorn, I., (2011). The Politics of Unsustainability: COP15, Post-Ecologism, and the Ecological Paradox, Organizational Environment, 24(1), 34-53. Boykoff, M.T. and Boykoff, J.M. (2007). Climate Change and Journalistic Norms: A case-study of U.S. mass media coverage, Geoforum, 38(6), 1190-1204. Boykoff, M.T. and Boykoff, J.M., (2004). Balance as Bias: Global warming and the U.S. prestige press, Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125-136. Brewer, P.G., (2007). Evaluating a technological fix for climate, PNAS, 104(24), 9915-9915. Bryngelsson, M. and Hansson, A., (2009), Energy Policy on Shaky Ground? A Study of CCS-scenarios, Energy Procedia, 1, 4673-4680, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9), 1620 November 2008, Washington DC, USA. Buehler, R., Messervey, D., Griffin, D., (2005). Collaborative planning and prediction: Does group discussion affect optimistic biases in time estimation?, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(1), 47–63. Buhr, K. and Hansson, A., (2011). Capturing the stories of corporations: A comparison of media debates on carbon capture and storage in Norway and Sweden, Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 336-345. CCSA, (2012). pers.comm., Question responses to Jasmine Livingston dated 31 July 2012 Clapp, J. and Dauvergne, P., (2009). Paths to a Green World: The Political Economy of the Global Environment, Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Clifford, N.J. and Valentine, G. (2003). Key Methods in Geography, London: Sage. Collins H. M. and Evans R. (2007). Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Collins, H.M. and Evans, R., (2002). The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience, Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235-296. 76. 1142521 Commission Decision 2010/670/EU (2010). Official Journal of the European Union, L290/39 [online] Available from http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:290:0039:0048:en:PDF [accessed 21 July 2012]. Conca, K., (2005). Old States in New Bottles? The Hybridisation of Authority in Global Environmental Politics, in J. Barry, and R. Eckersley, (Eds), The State and the Global Ecological Crisis, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 2005. 181-206. Coninck, d.H. and Backstrand, K., (2011). An International Relations Perspective on the Global Politics of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 368-378. Crang, M. (2001). Filed Work: Making sense of group interviews, in M. Limb and C. Dywer, (Eds), Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates, 2001, London: Hodder, 215-233. Curry, T., Reiner, D., Figuiredo, M.d. and Herzog, H., (2005). A Survey of Public Attitudes towards Energy and Environment in Great Britain, MIT LFEE 2005-001 WP, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, [Online] available from http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/LFEE_2005-001_WP.pdf [accessed 7 July 12] Curry, T.E., Reiner, D.M., Ansolabehere, S., and Herzog, H.J., (2004)., How Aware is the Public of Carbon Capture and Storage? Conference Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver, Canada, [online], available from http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/GHGT7_paper137_Curry.pdf [accessed 7 August 12] Cvetkovich, G.T. and Löfstedt, R.E. (Eds.). (1999), Social Trust and the Management of Risk, London: Earthscan. Cvetkovitch, G., and Löfstedt, R.E., (Eds). (1999), Social Trust and the Management of Risk, London: Earthscan. de Coninck, H., Stephens, J.C., Metz, B., (2009). Global learning on carbon capture and storage: a call for strong international cooperation on CCS demonstration, Energy Policy, 37(6), 2161–2165. de Coninck, H.C. and Huijts N.M.A., (2004). Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Public Perception, Policy and Regulatory Issues in the Netherlands, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), [Online] available from 77. 1142521 http://www.ecn.nl/fileadmin/ecn/units/bs/CCS/vancouver-hdc_nh.pdf [accessed 4 April 12] DECC Science Advisory Group, (2011). Carbon Capture and Storage: DECC-SAG Briefing Note: July 2011, London: DECC [Online] available from http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/about-us/science/3135-decc-sag-briefingnote-on-ccs.pdf [accessed 8 July 12] DECC, (2009a). Impact Assessment of Coal and Carbon Capture and Storage Requirements in a Framework for the Development of Clean Coal. London: DECC. DECC, (2009b). Towards Carbon Capture and Storage: Government Response to Consultation. London: DECC. DECC, (2012). CCS Innovation Programme £20m Competition Call, 13th March 2012, amended June 2012, [Online] available from http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/cutting-emissions/carbon-capturestorage/4634-ccs-inn-prog-20m-competition-call-flyer.pdf [accessed 30 June 12]. DECC, (2012). pers.comm., Letter to Jasmine Livingston dated 9 July 2012 DIRECTIVE 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A., (1983). Risk and Culture: An Essay on Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers, Berkeley: University of California Press. Dowd, A-M., Ashworth, P., Rodriguez, M. and Jeanneret, T., (2012). CCS in the Media: An analysis of international coverage, Energy & Environment, 23(2-3), 283298. Drysek, J. S., (2005). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses (2nd Edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press. DTI, (2005). A Strategy for Developing Carbon Abatement Technologies for Fossil Fuel Use, Carbon Abatement Technologies Programme, London: DTI. Dunwoody, S., (1993). Journalistic strategies for reporting long-term environmental issues: A case study of Superfund sites, in A. Hansen, (Ed), The Mass Media and Environmental Issues, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1993, 22-51. 78. 1142521 Eden, S. (1996). Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions, Public Understanding of Science, 5(3), 183-204. Eden, S. (1996). Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 5(3), 183-204. Environmental Change, 17(5595), 445-459 Ereaut, G. and Segnit, N. (2006). Warm Words: How we are telling the climate story and how we can tell it better?, London: Institute for Public Policy Research, [Online] available from http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/1529/warm-wordshow-are-we- telling-the-climate-story-and-can-we-tell-it-better [accessed 14 June 12] Ereaut, G. and Segnit, N., (2006). Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?, London: Institute for Policy Research, [Online] available from http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2011/05/warm_words_1529.pdf [accessed 8 Aug 12] Evans, G. and Durant, J. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain, Public Understanding of Science, 4(1), 57-74. Evans, G. and Durant, J., (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain, Public Understanding of Science, 4(1), 57-74 Evans, R. and Plow, A., (2007). Listening Without Prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen, Social Studies of Science, 37(6), 827-853. Evans, R. and Plows, A., (2007). Listening Without Prejudice? Re-Discovering the Value of the Disinterested Citizen, Social Studies of Science, 37(6), 827-853. Ferreira, C., Boholm, A, and Löfstedt, R., (2001). From Vision to Catastrophe: A Risk Event in Search of Images, in J. Flynn, P. Slovic, and H. Kunreuther, (Eds), Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology, London: Earthscan, 2001, 283-299. Fischedick, M., Pietzner, K., Supersberger, N., Esken, A., Kuckshinrichs, W., Zapp, P., Schumann, D., Radgen, P., Cremer, C., Gruber, E., Schnepf, N., Roser, A. and Idrissova, F., (2009). ‘Stakeholder acceptance of carbon capture and storage in Germany’, Energy Procedia, 1, 4783-4787, Proceedings of the 9th International 79. 1142521 Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9), 16-20 November 2008, Washington DC, USA Fischer, F. and Black, M., (Eds), (1995). Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a Sustainable Future, London: Paul Chapman Ltd. Fischer, F., (1993). Citizen Participation and the Democratisation of Policy Expertise: From political theory to practical cases, Policy Sciences, 26(3), 165-87. Fischer, F., (2004). Citizens and Experts in Risk Assessment: Technical Knowledge in Practical Deliberation, "Technikfolgenabschätzung", Nr. 2(13), 90-98, [Online], available from http://www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/042/fisc04a.htm [accessed 10 Aug 12]. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and Kunreuther, H., (Eds), (2001). Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology, London: Earthscan. Foxon, T. and Pearson, P. (2008). Overcoming Barriers to Innovation and Diffusion of Cleaner Technologies: Some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1), 148-161. Foxon, T., (2009). Climate Change Mitigation Policy: An overview of opportunities and challenges, University of Leeds: Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Working Paper No.11, November 2009. Foxon, T., Gross, R., Chase, A., Howes, J., Arnall, A. and Anderson, D., (2005). UK Innovation Systems for New and Renewable Energy Technologies: Drivers, barriers and systems failures, Energy Policy, 33(16), 2123-2137. Fri, R.W., (2003). The Role of Knowledge: Technological innovation in the energy system, The Energy Journal, 24(4), 51-74. Gibbins, J. and Chalmers, H., (2008). Carbon capture and Storage, Energy Policy, 36, 4317-4322. Giddens, A (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A., (2009). The Politics of Climate Change, Cambridge: Polity Press Gough C., and Shackley, S., (2006). Towards a Multi-Criteria Methodology for Assessment of Geological Carbon Storage Options, Climatic Change, 74(1-3), 141174. Gough, C and Mander, S., (2012). Are we nearly there yet? A review of progress against CCS roadmaps in the UK, Energy & Environment, 23(2-3), 367-374. 80. 1142521 Gough, C. and Mander, S., (2012). Are we nearly there yet? A review of progress against CCS roadmaps in the UK, Energy & Environment, 23(2-3), 367-374. Gough, C., (2008). State of the Art in Carbon Capture and Storage in the UK: An Expert’s Review, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2, 155-168. Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S., (2001). Burying Carbon Under the Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public Opinions, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, Working Paper 10, Norwich: Tyndall Centre Greenpeace, (2008), False Hope: Why CCS won’t save the climate, Amsterdam: Greenpeace International. Grosz, E., (2005). Time Travels: Feminism, Nature, Power, Durham and London: Duke University Press. Grove-White, R., (1997). Brent Spar rewrote the rules, New Statesman, 126, 20 June, 17–19. Grubb, M., (2005). Technology Innovation and Climate Change Policy: An Overview of issues and options, Keio Economic Studies, 41(2), 103-132. Ha-Duong, M., Nadai, A. and Campos, A.S., (2009). A Survey on the Public Perception of CCS in France, Energy Procedia, 1, 4757-4764, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9), 16-20 November 2008, Washington DC, USA. Hajer, M, A., (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hajer, M. (2006). Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning in M. van den Brink, and T. Metze, (eds.) Words matter in policy and planning: discourse theory and method in the social sciences, Utrecht KNAG/Nethur: Netherlands Geographical Studies 344, 2006, 65-74. Hammond, J. and Shackley, S., (2010). Towards a Public Communication and Engagement Strategy for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Projects in Scotland: A review of research findings, CCS project experiences, resources and best practice, Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage Working Paper 2010-08 Hansen, A. (Ed), (1993). The Mass Media and Environmental Issues, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 22-51. Hansson, A. and Bryngelsson, M., (2009). Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storage – A framing of uncertainties and possibilities, Energy Policy, 37(6), 2273-2283. 81. 1142521 Hazeldine, S., (2012). UK Carbon Capture and Storage, Where is it?, Energy & Environment, 23(2-3), 437-450. Held, D. and McGrew, A., (2002). Governing Globalisation: Power, Authority and Global Governance, London: Polity Press Hempel, L.C., (1995). Environmental technology and the green car: towards a sustainable transportation policy’ in F. Fischer and M. Black, (Eds), Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a Sustainable Future, London: Paul Chapman Ltd. 66-86. Hewitt, S., (2009). Discourse Analysis and Public Policy Research, Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series No. 24, October 2009, Newcastle: Newcastle University. Hoffert, M.I., Caldeira, K., Benford, G., Criswell, D.R., Green, C., Herzog, H., Jain, A.J., Kheshgi, H.S., Lackner, K.S., Lewis, J.S., Lightfoot, H.D., Manheimer, W., Mankins, J.C., Mauel, M.E., Perkins, L.J., Schlesinger, M.E., Volk, T. and Wigley, T.M.L., (2002). Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a greenhouse planet, Science, Vol.298, pp981-987 Hoggart, K, Lees, L and Davies, A. (2002). Researching Human Geography, London: Hodder. Hope, M., (2010). Frame Analysis as a Discourse Method: Framing ‘climate change politics’, Paper delivered to the Post-Graduate Conference on Discourse Analysis, March 2010, Bristol: University of Bristol. Hoppner, C., (2009). Public engagement in climate change – Disjunctions, tensions and blind spots in the UK., IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environment Series 8, 8(1), 012010. Huijts, N.M.A., (2003). Public Perceptions of Carbon Dioxide Storage: The role of trust and affect in attitude formation, Masters Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology. Huijts, N.M.A., Midden, C.J.H. and Meijnders, A.L., (2007). Social Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Storage, Energy Policy, 35(5), 2780-2789. IEA, (2009). Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage. Paris: OECD/IA. Ioan, I., Zamfir,A-I. and Constantin, F., (2009). Oil Companies’ Climate Change Discourses. Case Study: Exxonmobil’s Discourse Analysis, The Journal of the Faculty of Economics – University of Oradea, 1(1), 337-342. 82. 1142521 IPCC, (2007). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Metz, B. Davidson, O.R. Bosch, P.R. Dave, R. Meyer, L.A. (Eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK and New York, NY, USA. IPCC, (2011). Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, O. Edenhofer, R. PichsMadruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. IRGC, (2008). Regulation of Carbon Capture and Storage, Policy Brief, International Risk Governance Council, [Online] available from http://www.irgc.org/-Power-PlantCO2-Capture-.html [accessed 30 July 12] IRGC, (2009). Power Plant CO2 Capture Technologies: Risk and risk governance deficits, Concept Note, International Risk Governance Council, [Online] available from http://www.irgc.org/-Power-Plant-CO2-Capture-.html [accessed 30 July 12]. Irwin, A. and Michael, M., (2003). Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge, Maidenhead: Open University Press. Irwin, A., (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, London: Routledge. Jasanoff, S., (2003). Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H.M Collins and Robert Evans, “The Third Wave of Science Studies”, Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 389-400. Jasanoff, S., (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, London: Routledge. Johnsson, F., Reiner, D., Itaoka, K. and Herzog, H., (2009). Stakeholder Attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage – an international comparison, Energy Procedia, 1, 4819-4826, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9), 16-20 November 2008, Washington DC, USA. Kasperson, J.X. and Kasperson, R.E. (Eds.), (2005). The Social Contours of Risk, Earthscan: London. Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Perkins, B.J., Renn, O., White, A.L., (2005). 83. 1142521 Media risk signals and the proposed yucca mountain nuclear waste repository, 1985–1989. In J.X. Kasperson and R.E. Kasperson, (Eds.), The Social Contours of Risk, Earthscan: London, 2005, 133-160. Katz, I., (2009). Twenty ideas that could save the world, Guardian Online, [Online] available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/13/manchesterreport-climate-change [accessed 28 May 2012]. King, D.A., (2004). Climate Change Science: Adapt, Mitigate or Ignore, Science, 303(5655), 176-177 Kirchsteiger, C., (2008). Carbon Capture and Storage – Desirability from a risk management point of view, Safety Science, 46(7), 1149-1154. Kranzberg, M., (1986). Technology and History: "Kranzberg's Laws", Technology and Culture, 27(3), 544-560. Krueger, R.A., (1998). Developing Questions for Focus Groups, London: Sage Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B., (eds), (1996). Risk, Environment & Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, London: Sage. LeCain, T.J., (2004). When Everybody Wins Does the Environment Lose? The Environmental Techno-Fix in Twentieth-Century American Mining, in L., Rosner (Ed.), The Technological Fix: How People Use Technology to Create and Solve Problems, Oxford: Routledge, 2004,117-132. Leiserowitz, A., (2007). International Public Opinion, Perception and Understanding of Global Climate Change, Human Development Report Office Occasional Paper. [Online] available from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr20072008/papers/leiserowitz_anthony6.pdf [accessed 8 Aug 12]. Liang, X., Reiner, D., Gibbins, J. and Li, J., (2010). Getting ready for carbon capture and storage by issuing capture options, Environment and Planning A, 42(6),1286-1307. Limb. M. and Dywer, C., (Eds), (2001). Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates, London: Hodder Lindlof, T., (1995). Qualitative Communication Research Methods, London: Sage Littlecott, C., (2012). Stakeholder Interests and the Evolution of UK CCS Policy, Energy & Environment, 23(2-3), 425-436. Livingston, J.E., (2008). Communicating Climate Change: The IPCC, the media 84. 1142521 and the public realm. Dissertation (MSci). University of Bristol Löfstedt, R.E., (2005). Risk in Post-Trust Societies, London: Earthscan. Lorenzoni, I. Nicholson-Cole, S. and Whitmarsh, L. (2007), Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications, Global Lyon, T.P. and Maxwell, J.W., (2011). Greenwash: Corporate Environmental Disclosure under Threat of Audit, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3-41. Mabon, L.J., (2012). Values, Places and Bodies: Opportunities for forging a deeper understanding of public perceptions of CCS, Energy & Environment, 23(2-3), 329-343. Malone, E.L., Bradbury, J.A. and Dooley, J.J., (2006). Keeping CCS Stakeholder Involvement in Perspective, Energy Procedia, 1, 4789-4794, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT9), 16-20 November 2008, Washington DC, USA. Malone, E.L., Dooley, J.J. and Bradbury, J.A., (2010). Moving from misinformation derived from public attitude surveys on carbon dioxide capture and storage towards realistic stakeholder involvement, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4((2), 419-4257 Maranta, A. Guggenheim, M. Gisler, P. and Pohl, C. (2003). The Reality of Experts and the Imagined Lay person, Acta Sociologica, 46(2), 150-165. Markusson, N., (2012), ‘Born Again: The debate on lock-in and CCS’, Energy & Environment, Vol.23, pp389-394 Markusson, N., Ishii, A. and Stephens, J.C., (2011). The social and political complexities of learning in carbon capture and storage demonstration projects, Global Environmental Change, Vol.21(2), 293-302. McDowell, L. (1998). Elites in the City of London: some methodological considerations. Environment and Planning A, 30(12), 2133‐2146. Miller, E., Bell, L. and Buys, L., (2007). Public Understanding of Carbon Sequestration in Australia: Socio-Demographic Predictors of Knowledge, Engagement and Trust, Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 5(1), 15-33 Mol A, Sonnenfeld D and Spaargaren G (Eds) (2009). The Ecological 85. 1142521 Modernization Reader: Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Mol, A. P.J. and Sonnenfeld, D.A., (2000). (Eds), Ecological Modernisation Around the World: Perspectives and Critical Debates. London: Frank Cass. Morgan, C.T., (2012), ‘Inspiring a Generation of Educators with Carbon Capture and Storage’, Energy & Environment, Vol.23, pp395-404 Moriaty, P. and Honnery, D., (2011). Rise and Fall of the Carbon Civilisation: Resolving Global Environmental and Resource Problems, London: Springer. Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L. (Eds), (2007). Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and facilitating Social Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myerson, G. and Rydin, Y., (1996). The Language of the Environment: A New Rhetoric, London: UCL Press. New Scientist., (2011), We can still avoid a ‘lost decade’ on climate change: Our best hope of tackling global warming now rests with technologists, not diplomats, New Scientist Opinion, Issue 2843, [Online] available from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228433.700-we-can-still-avoid-a-lostdecade-on-climate-change.html [accessed 6 June 2012]. Newbery, D., Reiner, D., Jamash, T., Steinberg, R., Toxveard, F. and Noel, P., (2009). CCS: Analysis of Incentives and Rules in a European Repeated Game Situation, Electricity Policy Research Group: University of Cambridge, Report No. URN 09D/676 Cambridge: University of Cambridge Nisbet, M.C., (2010). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames matter for public engagement, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development¸ 51(2), 12-23. NRS, (2012). NRS Readership Estimates - Newspapers and Supplements AIR Latest 12 Months: July 2011 - June 2012, [Online] available from http://www.nrs.co.uk/toplinereadership.html [accessed 23 Aug 12]. Pacala, S. and Socolow, R., (2004). Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies, Science, 305(5986), 968-972. Palmgren, C.R., Granger Morgan, M., Bruine de Bruin, W. and Keith, D.W., (2004). Initial Public Perceptions of Deep Geological and Oceanic Disposal of 86. 1142521 Carbon Dioxide, Environmental Science and Technology, 38(24), 6441-6450. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R.E. and Slovic, P., (Eds), (2003). The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press. Poortinga W., Pidgeon, N.F. and Lorenzoni, I. (2006). Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005. Technical Report (Understanding Risk Working Paper 06-02). Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk. Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F., (2003). Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk regulation, Risk Analysis, 23(5), 961-972. Princen, T. (1994). NGOs: creating a niche in environmental diplomacy, in T. Princen, and M. Finger, (Eds), Environmental NGOs in world politics: Linking the global and the local, London: Routledge, 1994, 29-47. Rasch, P.J., (2010). Technical Fixes and Climate Change: Optimising for risks and consequences, Environ. Res. Lett., 5(3), 2-3. Reiner, D., (2011). Learning Lessons on Carbon Storage, Nature Climate Change, 1, 96-98. Reiner, D., Curry, T., de Figueiredo, M., Herzog, H., Ansolabehere, S., Itaoka, K., Akai, M., Johnsson, F. and Odenberger, M., (2008). An international comparison of public attitudes towards carbon capture and storage technologies, Energy Procedia, 1, 4827-4840, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9), 16-20 November 2008, Washington DC, USA. Reiner, D.M. (2008). A looming rhetorical gap: a survey of public communications activities for carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies, Electricity Policy Research Group Working Papers, No.0801. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Reiner, D.M. and Nuttall, W.J. (2009). Public and social acceptability of geological disposal of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste: similarities and differences, Electricity Policy Research Group Working Papers, No.EPRG0918. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Richardson, J.E., (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis, New York: Palgrove MacMillan. 87. 1142521 Román, M., (2011). Carbon capture and storage in developing countries: A comparison of Brazil, South Africa and India, Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 391-401. Rosner, L., (Ed), (2004). The Technological Fix: How People Use Technology to Create and Solve Problems, Oxford: Routledge. Rowe, G., Frewer, L. and Sjoberg, L., (2000). Newspaper reporting of hazards in the UK and Sweden, Public Understanding of Science, 9(1), 59-78. Royal Society, The., (2009). Geoengineering the Climate: Science, governance and uncertainty, London: Royal Society. Russell, S-J., (2012). UK CCS Plants race for EU funds, IEMA Environmentalist Magazine, Norwich: IEMA, [Online] available from http://www.environmentalistonline.com/article/2012-08-14/uk-ccs-plants-race-foreu-funds [accessed 19 Aug 12]. Saint, S., (2008). ‘A Critical Discourse Analysis of Corporate Environmental Harm’, Internet Journal of Criminology, MA Thesis, University of Central Lancashire [Online] available from www.internetjournalofcriminology.com [accessed 2 July 12]. Sarewitz, D. and Nelson, R., (2008). Commentary: Three Rules for Technological Fixes, Nature, 456(7224), 871-872. SCCS (2011), Process of Carbon Capture and Storage¸ [Online], available from http://www.sccs.org.uk/ [accessed 30 July 12]. Schoenberger, E., (1991). The Corporate Interview as a Research Method in Economic Geography, Professional Geographer, 43(2), 180-189 Shackley, S. and Dütschke, E., (2012). Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage – Not A Silver Bullet to Climate Change, but a Feasible Option?, Energy & Environment, 23(2-3), 209-225. Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Gough, C., (2004). The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage, Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research UMIST, Working Paper No. 44. Shackley, S., Waterman, H., Godfroij, P., Reiner, D., Anderson, J., Draxlbauer, K., de Coninck, H., Groenenberg, H., Flach, T. and Flagstad, O., (2007). Stakeholder Perceptions of CO2 Capture and Storage in Europe: Results from the EU-funded ACCSEPT Survey, Deliverable D3.1 from ACCSEPT 88. 1142521 Markusson, N., Shackley, S. and Evar, B. (Eds), (2012). The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage: Understanding CCS representations, governance and innovation, Abingdon: Routledge. Sharp, L., and Richardson, T., (2001). Reflections on Foucaldian Discourse Analysis in Planning and Environmental Policy Research, Journal of Environment Policy and Planning, 3(3), 193-209. Silverman, D., (2996). Interpreting Qualitative Data (3rd Edn), London: Sage. Sjoberg, L., (1999). ‘Perceived Competence and Motivation in Industry and Government as Factors in Risk Perception’, in G. Cvetkovitch, and R.E. Löfstedt, (Eds), Social Trust and the Management of Risk, London: Earthscan, 1999, 89-99 Slovic, P., (1993). Perceived Risk, Trust and Democracy, Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675682. Slovic, P., (1999). Perceived Risk, Trust and Democracy in G. Cvetkovitch, and R.E. Löfstedt, R.E., (Eds), Social Trust and the Management of Risk, London: Earthscan, 1999, 42-52. Stephens, J. (2006). Growing interest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) for climate change mitigation, Sustainability: Practice and Policy, 2(2), 4-13. Stephens, J.C., Hansson, A., Lui, Y., de Coninck, H. and Vajjhala, S., (2011). Characterising the international carbon capture and storage community, Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 379-390. Stern, N (2007). The Economics of Climate Change – the Stern Review, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Stilgoe, J., Irwin, A. and Jones, K., (2006). The Received Wisdom: Opening up expert advice, London: Demos, [Online] available from www.demos.co.uk [accessed 7 July 12] Strydom, P., (2002). Risk, Environment and Society, Buckingham: Open University Press. Suff, P., (2011). Chancellor backtracks on green goals, Environmentalist Magazine, IEMA: Lincoln. Terwel, B.W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N. and Daamen, D.D.L., (2009b). How organisational motives and communications affect public trust in organisations: The case of carbon capture and storage, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 290-299. 89. 1142521 Terwel, B.W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., Daamen, D.D.L. and de Best-Waldhober, M., (2009b). Trust as a Predictor of Public Acceptance of CCS, Energy Procedia, 1, 4613-1616. Torgerson, D., (2001). The uncertain quest for sustainability: Public discourse and the politics of environmentalism, in J. Flynn, P. Slovic, and H. Kunreuther, (Eds), Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology, London: Earthscan, 2001, 3-20. Torvanger, A. and Meadowcroft, J., (2011). The Political Economy of technology Support: Making decisions about carbon capture and storage and low carbon energy technologies, Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 303-312. Uekoetter, F., (2004). Solving Air Pollution Problems Once and For All: The Potential and the Limit of Technological Fixes, in L., Rosner, (Ed.), The Technological Fix: How People Use Technology to Create and Solve Problems, Oxford: Routledge, 2004, 133-150. UNFCCC., (2009). Copenhagen Accord in Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009, Bonn: UNFCCC, FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1, 2010, 5-7. Valentine, G., (2001). Social geographies: Space and society, Harlow: Prentice Hall. van den Brink, M., and Metze, T. (eds.) (2006), Words matter in policy and planning: discourse theory and method in the social sciences, Utrecht KNAG/Nethur: Netherlands Geographical Studies 344. Vaughan, N.E. and Lenton, T.M., (2011). A Review of Geoengineering Proposals, Climatic Change, 109(3-4), 745-790. Vergraght, P.J., Markusson, N. and Karlsson, H., (2011). Carbon capture and storage, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil-fuel lock-in, Global Environmental Change, Vol.21(2), 282-292. Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendricks, F., Lohmann, S., Ney, S., Rayner, S. and Thompson, M., (2006). Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World: The Case of Climate Change, Public Administration, 84(4), 817-843. Vicklund, M., (2002). Energy Policy Options: from the perspective of Public Attitudes and Risk Perceptions, SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration, Stockholm: Centre for Risk Research, No. 2002:12. 90. 1142521 von Stechlow, C., Watson, J. and Praetorius, B., (2011). Policy Incentives for Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies in Europe: A qualitative multi-criteria analysis, Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 346-357 Weingart, P., Engels, A. and Pansegrau, P., (2000). Risks of Communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics and the mass media, Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 261-283. Wesselink, A., Paavola J., Fritsch O., and Renn, O., (2011). Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives, Environment and Planning A, 43(11), 2688 – 2704. Wustenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. and Burer, M.J., (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept, Energy Policy, 35(5), 2683-2691. Wynne, B., (1996). May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the ExpertLay Knowledge Divide, in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, B. and B. Wynne, (eds), Risk, Environment & Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, London: Sage, 1996, 27-83. Zimmerman, M.B., (1982). Learning effects and the commercialization of new energy technologies: the case of nuclear power, The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 297–310. FOCUS GROUPS FG1, undertaken 17th July 2012, participants: 17A, 17B, 17C, 17D, 17E, 17F FG2, undertaken 18th July 2012, participants: 18A, 18B, 18C, 18D, 18E, 18F FG3, undertaken 19th July 2012, participants: 19A, 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E, 19F FG4, undertaken 20th July 2012, participants: 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20E, 20F FG5, undertaken 23rd July 2012, participants: 23A, 23B, 23C, 23D, 23E, 23F FG6, undertaken 31st July 2012, participants: 31A, 31B, 31C, 31D, 31E, 31F 91.