- Email: [email protected]
Influential information and factors for social acceptance of CCS: The 2nd round survey of public opinion in Japan
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia
Energy (2009) 4803–4810 EnergyProcedia Procedia1 00 (2008) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/XXX
GHGT-9
Influential information and factors for social acceptance of CCS: the 2nd round survey of public opinion in Japan Kenshi Itaokaa*, Yuki Okudaa, Aya Saitoa, Makoto Akaib 㨎
a Mizuho Information & Research Institute, Inc., 3-1 Kanda Nishiki-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0085 Japan National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology(AIST), Namiki 1-2, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki Pref. 305-8564 Japan
Elsevier use only: Received date here; revised date here; accepted date here
Abstract A public survey was conducted concerning carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) in the months of February and April 2007 in Japan, Previously another CCS survey took place in December 2003, and a set of the questions asked in the 2007 survey were purposely the same as that used in the 2003 survey, Japanese adults were randomly selected to answer a questionnaire either in printed format or in online format. Several versions of the questionnaire were used, and each contained a different educational part, imparting relevant CCS information. 334 people successfully responded to our paper survey in Tokyo and Sapporo while 2156 people completed our online survey across the nation. The questionnaire for the survey contained 5 sets of different information package on CCS and questions asking pros and cons on CCS implementation to analyze influence of information provided on CCS. Based on the results of survey we found: that not many people still know about CCS. Those who have knowledge on CCS show a preference for CCS implementation, however; preference was decreased after obtaining information which we considered was neutral on CCS. These results suggest a possibility that information on negative aspects of CCS (risks, etc.) would not be well known in the general public. We also found that preference for CSS decreased slightly after providing different information on CCS to respondents in the group with the newspaper articles which we considered neutral in comparison with other groups. The newspaper articles contained the information on negative opinions against CCS besides risk-related information as well as information based on an IPCC Special Report: it is assumed that such negative opinions may have influenced opinion formation of respondents. Since CCS is new technology, information about how other people or entities evaluate CCS would influence public opinion. In the sub-sample provided with industrial and natural analogues of preference on geological storage, the views were slightly more positive about CSS in comparison with reported opinions of other groups. This implies information on natural or industrial analogue would help manage perception of risk in a positive way. The result of path analysis to data of a public survey identified four factors, (1) risks and leakage, (2) effectiveness of CCS, (3) responsibility, and (4) fossil fuel use. We found that the factor of understanding the effectiveness of CCS is most positively influential for general acceptance of CCS. I Implementation of geological storage and the factor of risks and leakage become much more influential negatively in the implementation of geological storage compared to general acceptance of CCS, implying that implementation of CC2 geological storage also needs careful communication of risk. c 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: carbon capture and storage; public survey; public opinion
* Corresponding author. Tel. +81-3-5281-5295, Fax. +81-3-5281-5466. E-mail address: [email protected].
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.307
4804
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810
2
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
1. Introduction CO2 capture and storage technology (CCS) has been attracting attention as an emerging technology that has large potential for CO2 emission mitigation. However, there are some unknown aspects about its social acceptance since characteristics of this technology substantially differ from other available CO2 mitigation technologies, such as leakage risk of CO2 from storage sites. Given this situation, the authors designed a survey questionnaire for assessing Japanese public opinion, which was conducted in February and March 2007 to investigate the extent of recognition and latent social acceptance on global warming mitigation measures including CCS, as well as the kind of factors/that would influence their views. The survey in 2007 was designed to provide different kind of information on CCS to subsamples. This allowed analysis of the variance of acceptance level depending on available information can be analyzed, which is the focus of this report. 2. Implementation of the survey The public survey was conducted in February and March 2007 in (1) in Tokyo and City of Sapporo by door-todoor method using printed format and (2) across the nation via the Internet using an online format. Respondents were selected by area sampling for the door-to-door survey and by stratified random sampling from registrants of a survey company’s panel for the Internet survey. Itaoka, et al. (2004, 2006) earlier reported on the results of a doorto-door survey in Tokyo and City of Sapporo in December 2003; the questions in this survey were largely replicated in the two 2007 surveys. Table 1 shows attributes of the samples of the 2007’s door-to-door and Internet surveys as well as the 2003’s door-to-door survey. The response rates of 2007 door-to-door survey were 37% and 30% for the one administered via the Internet.. Table 1. Characteristics of respondent
9 JQNGUCO RNG +PVGTPGV
Year of Education
Sex
Age
Feb-Mar 2007 Dec 2003 Feb-Mar 2007 (Paper, (Paper, Sample (Internet) Door-to-door) Door-to-door) Venue Sapporo&Tokyo Sapporo&Tokyo Nation No. of valid sample 1006 334 2156 Collection rate 64% 37% 30% 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s-70s over 80 Average
15% 18% 23% 21% 23% 0% 47
18% 22% 16% 19% 16% 8% 46
16% 20% 17% 20% 28% 0% 48
Male
49%
49%
49%
Female
51%
51%
51%
Junior high. (9 yrs) High school (12 yrs) 2-year college/ vocational school (14 University (16 yrs) Post graduate (18 yrs) Average
8% 41%
10% 42%
5% 35%
22%
20%
23%
28% 1% 13.4
28% 1% 13.3
35% 3% 13.9
3 & Q[QWMPQY % % 5 ! ; GU ޓ+MPQ Y VQUQO GGZVGPV
㪥㫆 䋨㪠㩷㪻㫆㫅㩾㫋㩷㫂㫅㫆㫎㪅㪆㩷㪠㩾㫍㪼㩷㪿㪼㪸㫉㪻㩷㫆㪽㩷㫀㫋㪅䋩
3 # TG[QWHQTQTCICKPUV% % 5 !
FKXGTIGCVTCPFQO
2 TQXKFGKPHQTO CVKQP
$ 0 GY URCRGTCTVKENGUVCMKPIPGWVTCNRQUKVKQPHQT% % 5 $ $ CUKEKPHQTO CVKQPQP% % 5 +2 % % $ $ % WTTGPVO GCUWTGUKUPQVGPQWIJ
#
$ $ 0 CVWTCNCPFKPFWUVTKCNCPCNQIWG $ $ KPVTQFWEG< ' 2
3 3 WGUVKQPUHQTHCEVQTCPCN[UKU㧔SWGUVKQPU UECNGU㧕 2 TQXKFG
# CU
KPHQTO C VKQ P
Y KVJ$
$ $
3 # TG[QWHQTQTCICKPUV% % 5 ! 0 WO DGTUKPRCTGPVJGUGUKPFKECVGXCNKFTGURQPUG
Figure 1. respondents’ characteristics
3. Questionnaire design 3.1 Structure of the questionnaire The structure of the questionnaire for the Internet survey is shown in Figure 1. The first question asked respondents to self-identify themselves based on their recognition of CCS. Specifically, respondents were grouped into one of two categories: (a) “I know to some extent.” and (b) “I don’t know” or “I’ve heard of it.” To those who responded as “I know to some extent,” another question was given to ask about their views for or against CCS implementation in the second question. In the third question, information on CCS was provided to all respondents. This then corresponded to45 questions in the fourth set of questions that contributed to conducting a factor analysis on respondents’ views on CCS and global warming. The third and fourth parts of the survey were administered in reverse order to Group A2 (far left in Figure 1) that comprised roughly a half of the “I know to some extent” respondents. Finally, the fifth question asked the same question as the first one to assess any changes in opinion for
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
4805 3
or against CCS implementation based on new information provided about the application of this technology. 3.2 Internal tests and external tests The questionnaire was designed to conduct internal and external tests to examine effects of the information provided to respondents. As Figure 1 shows, the questions designed to probe about respondent views for or against CCS implementation were given two times before and after providing information about this technology to those who responded as “I know it to some extent” in the first question of the survey. Internal tests were conducted by examining the mean change of responses between the two questions. The other respondents who responded as “I’ve heard of it” and “I don’t know” in the first question were only asked about their views for or against CCS implementation at the end of the survey following their receipt of information about the technology. All of the respondents were eventually provided with one of five different information packages on CCS in the questionnaire. External test were conducted by comparing the answers to the questions of five subsamples which were provided with different information package. 3.3 Information treatment We prepared five type s of information about CCS for resp9ondents. B1 quotes newspaper articles on CCS. B2 and A2 give technological explanations and describe major characteristics of CCS as reported in the IPCC Special Report on CCS. B3-B5 add three types of supplemental information to the IPCC information in B2: Specifically, B3 offered a message from distinguished scientists to raise public awareness, saying that existing mitigation measures cannot achieve sufficient reduction of CO2 emissions; B4 contained analogue information (industrial activities and natural phenomenon that are similar to CCS); and B5 describes the CCS introduction plan in Europe (The EU Flagship Programme for CO Capture and Storage (CCS) ZEP). For technological explanation on CCS, the questionnaire discussed four methods of CO2 storage were included (ocean storage types and geological storage types). For samples of door-to-door survey (n=334), we used the same questionnaire form as Subsample B2. 4. Analysis 4.1 Public recognition of CCS Figure 2 shows the result of the first question about recognition on CCS,. It was designed with three ordinal scales: (1) I know to some extent; I2) I’ve heard of it; and (3) I don’t know. Public recognition of CCS in the 2003 survey administered to the general public in Tokyo and Sapporo revealed that 9% of respondents knew to some extent and another 22% “reporting that they have heard of it.. These respective rates in the 2007 door-to-door survey are 7% and 12% and 18% and 33% for the Internet survey. There is statistical significance (P < 0.01) in recognition rates between the samples of door-to-door and Internet surveys; Internet panel registrants show higher recognition rates than general public in Tokyo and Sapporo. The result shows that information on CCS is becoming more available among people who have good information literacy such as the registrants of the Internet panel.
4.2 Public opinion about CCS implementation The question about CCS implementation has three items and was designed with six variations in total. In the first question, 1A, we asked respondents’ views about being for or against implementing CCS as a part of climate policy portfolio using a 5-level Likert scale from 1 (No) to 5 (Yes). Question 1B was as a follow-up of 1A and asked those other than the group who reported a 5 (Yes) on the first question if they were “fundamentally no” or whether it “depends on conditions.” In the second item, we asked respondents to assess their views for or against CCS implementation, again using a5-level Likert scale. As with 1A, we did this for each of the four technologies: (1) ocean dilution type, (2) ocean lake type, (3) geological onshore and (4) geological offshore. The results are shown in
4806
4
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
Figures 3 and 4. As for the question that probed respondents to state whether they were for or against CCS implementation by technology type, the mean value for each technology is consistent with what was found with the 2003 surveys. “Ocean dilution type” is most preferred followed by “ocean lake type.” “Geological onshore” is the third most popular choice and “geological offshore” is the least favorable choice. (1) Current opinions of those who have knowledge on CCS As reported earlier, Question 1A asked respondents about their knowledge of implementing CCS as a part of a larger climate policy portfolio. In this second analysis, we restricted the survey to only those who reported some familiarity with CSS. Before respondents were provided with technical information, the mean results (on a 5-[point Likert scale) about their support for the technology equaled were 3.86 for those in the door-to-door survey and 4.11 for those responding to the Internet survey., These results show that over two-thirds of these self-identified knowledgeable respondents had positive opinions about CSS (see legend A0 in Figure 3). Put simply, people with some knowledge on CCS y tend to have a favorable opinion on implementing CCS as a part of a larger climate policy portfolio. Second, in the question to the same respondents on their support for the four CCS technologies (Question 2) (legend A0 in Figure 3), the mean results in door-to-door survey were 3 or more (3.00-3.39) for all technologies. Thus, the public either was neutral or positive about their implementation. By contrast, those polled in the Internet survey had mean results that ranged from 2.88 to 3.73, indicating a large difference in their level of acceptability of the four types of CSS technology: Other than ocean dilution, respondents held positive opinions, with 60% supporting the two geological types of CSS. The result shows that people with knowledge on CCS in the Internet survey often tend to make their choice dependent upon the specific technological type.. (2) Changes in opinions of those who have knowledge on CCS, before and after providing information (internal test) This section describes opinions of those who have knowledge on CCS after providing information mainly quoted from questions (1) and (2), including IPCC Special Report (seen in Legend A0 and A in Figures 3). As for implementing CCS as a part of climate policy portfolio (Question 1A), there is no major observed change: respondents tend to choose a more positive view after receiving information. This was true in both door-to-door surveys (statistically insignificant mean change from 3.86 to 4.11) and in the Internet surveys (; with a statistically significant change of mean value from 4.11 to 4.02, P < 0.1). As for the question on CCS implementation by technology (Question 2), there was a change to somewhat negative direction with the door-to-door survey as the mean value equal to 3 or below for the two ocean storage types (statistically significant in mean value for ocean dilution type only, P < 0.1). By contrast, respondents prefer the two geological storage types with a mean value of 3 or more observed for the door-to-door survey (a scarce decrease was noted that is not statistically significant). By comparison, participants to the Internet survey expressed opinions that correlated with a slight shift tin a negative direction observed for all of the four technologies (the two ocean storage types are statistically significant in mean values, P < 0.1 respectively). These results show that people with knowledge on CCS have strong opinions that are not much affected with information temporarily provided in the questionnaire. (3) Comparison of opinions between those who have and who do not have knowledge on CCS, after providing information (external test) Somewhat characteristic in the 2007 survey was the difference in opinions between those who have and who do not have knowledge on CCS (Figures 4). Basically, those who have knowledge on CCS are more likely to choose “Yes” than those who do not have such knowledge for not only implementing CCS as a part of climate policy portfolio but also for implementation of each CCS technology (regarding the four technologies, no statistical significance was observed in the door-to-door survey while a statistical significance of P <0.01 noted for the Internet survey). This tendency was also observed in the 2003 survey, but it seems to have become stronger in the 2007 survey. In terms of geological storage, in particular, responses from those who have knowledge on CCS are above 3 in mean values, in both door-to-door and Internet surveys, showing that positive opinion to support CCS implementation is
4807
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
5
getting stronger among people with knowledge on CCS at this stage. Q1A Yes / No about implementing CCS as a part of climate policy portfolio? (5 level rating scale) Q1B Fundamentally No or “It depends”? (Dichotomous choice: 2 level rating scale) Q2 Yes / No about implementation by type of CCS? 㩷 (5 level rating scale) Ao: Respondents who chose “I know CCS to some extent.” A: Respondents who chose “I know CCS to some extent.” B: Respondents who chose “I've heard of CCS/ I don't know CCS.”
㪨 㪈 㪘㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㪘㩷㩷 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀 㪨 㪈 㪙 㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼
㪏 㪍 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴 㪈 㪈㪉 㪈㪌 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪈㪏 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴
㪊㪉
㪉㪍 㪌㪎
㪉㪏
㪉㪐
㪊㪐
㪊㪅㪍 㪴㩷 㪊㪅㪋 㪊㪅㪋
㪈㪌
㪍㪎 㪉
㪊㪊 㪊㪋
㪉㪈 㪉㪉
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴
㪈㪌 㪈㪏
㪉㪏 㪉㪐
㪨㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴
㪈㪏 㪈㪌
㪉㪋 㪉㪎
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴
㪈㪌 㪈㪊
㪊㪊 㪊㪍 㪉㪏
㪉㪇
㪋㪇
㪊㪍 㪋㪌
㪈㪍 㪉㪈
㪇㩼
㪈㪇 㪎 㪈
㪊㪎
㪉㪇㩼
㪉㪑㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀
㪋㪑㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀
㪌㪑㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀
㪝㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㫅㫆㪅
㪠㫋㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫊㪅
㪈㪉
㪍㪇㩼
㪈
㪘㫆㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪉㪴 㪌 㪐 㪉㪍 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪐㪴 㪈㪇
㪨 㪈 㪙 㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪘㫆㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪋㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪉㪴
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪉㪊㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴
㪈㪎
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪉㪊㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴
㪈㪎 㪈㪐
㪈㪏
㪊㪉 㪊㪎
㪐 㪌
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪉㪊㪴 㪋 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴 㪌
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪉㪊㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴
㪊㪅㪐 㪋㪅㪈
㪊㪍 㪊㪎
㪌㪌 㪌㪏
㪊㪊
㪈㪊
㪉㪅㪎 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪍 㪉㪅㪍
㪈㪎
㪎 㪋
㪉㪅㪐 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪏 㪉㪅㪏
㪏㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪊㪑㩿㪖㪀
Figure4a. Comparison of opinions between those who have knowledge on CCS and those who do not, after providing information, door-to-door survey (2003)㩷
㪐
㪐 㪈㪇
㪈㪎
㪉㪇㩼
㪉㪑㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀 㪌㪑㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀
㪝㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㫅㫆㪅
㪠㫋㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫊㪅
㪈㪇 㪈㪐
㪊㪌 㪈㪋
㪐 㪈㪋
㪊㪐 㪉㪐
㪉㪋
㪋㪑㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀
㪈㪋
㪈㪎 㪈㪋
㪋㪊
㪋㪇㩼
㪈㪑㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀
㪉㪉
㪉㪐 㪉㪋
㪊㪇
㪈㪎 㪈㪐
㪇㩼
㪊㪌
㪊㪌
㪉㪋
㪉㪉 㪉㪋
㪨 㪈 㪘 㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩷㩷 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀 㪨㪈 㪙㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㪙 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪈㪋
㪍㪇㩼
㪈㪎 㪈㪐 㪏㪇㩼
㪨㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪏㪎㪴
㪉㪇
㪊㪅㪉 㪉㪅㪐
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪏㪏㪴
㪈㪐 㪈㪌
㪊㪅㪉 㪊㪅㪈
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪊㪅㪋 㪊㪅㪊
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪎㪏㪴
㪨 㪈 㪙㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㪙 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪉㪊 㪉㪇 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪈 㪎 㪈㪌 㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪌 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪐
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴
㪈㪊 㪈㪍
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴
㪐 㪈㪉
㪨㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪊㪍 㪋㪇 㪌㪋 㪌㪌 㪉㪌 㪉㪍
㪉㪇 㪉㪇
㪌 㪏 㪍 㪈㪇 㪋 㪏 㪌 㪈㪇 㪇㩼
㪋㪅㪈 㪋㪅㪇
㪋㪇 㪊㪌
㪊㪏 㪊㪌 㪊㪍 㪊㪊
㪊㪉 㪊㪈
㪉㪇㩼 㪉㪑㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀
㪋㪑㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀
㪌㪑㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀
㪝㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㫅㫆㪅
㪠㫋㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫊㪅
㪉㪉 㪉㪌 㪊㪌 㪊㪌
㪉㪏 㪉㪏
㪈㪑㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀
㪈㪋 㪈㪌
㪍㪇㩼
㪉㪅㪐 㪉㪅㪏
㪐
㪊㪅㪉 㪊㪅㪇
㪉㪇 㪈㪐
㪊㪌 㪊㪉 㪋㪇㩼
㪏
㪊㪅㪍 㪊㪅㪌
㪉㪌 㪉㪌 㪏㪇㩼
㪊㪅㪎 㪊㪅㪎
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪊㪑㩿㪖㪀
Figure3b. Changes in opinions of those who have knowledge on CCS, before and after providing information, Internet survey (2007)
㪊㪎 㪌㪏
㪈㪇 㪈㪇
㪋㪅㪈 㪴㩷 㪊㪅㪋 㪊㪅㪋
㪈㪍
㪍㪎 㪉㪐
㪈㪋 㪊㪐 㪉㪋
㪉㪋 㪊㪇 㪉㪋
㪊㪎
㪊㪇
㪊㪏
㪊㪊
㪇㩼
㪋㪊
㪉㪊
㪈㪐 㪉㪇
㪉㪋
㪉㪇㩼
㪋㪇㩼
㪈㪑㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀
㪉㪑㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀
㪋㪑㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀
㪌㪑㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀
㪝㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㫅㫆㪅
㪠㫋㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫊㪅
㪈㪋
㪊㪋 㪈㪋
㪊㪍
㪉㪐
㪋㪉 㪍㪇㩼
㪌㪉
㪉㪅㪌 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪊 㪉㪅㪊
㪊
㪉㪅㪐 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪎 㪉㪅㪎
㪋
㪊㪅㪈 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪏 㪉㪅㪏
㪌
㪊㪅㪊 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪐 㪉㪅㪐
㪈㪍
㪈㪋
㪋㪋
㪈㪇
㪈㪎
㪉㪊
㪈㪋
㪈㪐
㪏㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪊㪑㩿㪖㪀
Figure4b. Comparison of opinions between those who have knowledge on CCS and those who do not, after providing information, door-to-door survey (2007) 㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼
㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼 㪨 㪈 㪘㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㪘㩷㩷 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴 㪌 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪎㪏㪴 㪈㪊
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪊㪑㩿㪖㪀
㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼
㪇 㪉㪍 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪐㪴 㪇 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪏㪎㪴 㪈 㪈㪉 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪉㪴 㪌 㪈㪎 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪊㪐㪴
㪊㪅㪇 㪉㪅㪌
Figure3a. Changes in opinions of those who have knowledge on CCS, before and after providing information, door-to-door survey (2007)
㪉㪅㪏 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪎 㪉㪅㪌
㪍 㪈㪈 㪉
㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼 㪨 㪈 㪘 㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩷㩷 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪉㪅㪋 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪊 㪉㪅㪊
㪈㪍 㪉㪌
㪋㪌
㪋㪇㩼
㪈㪑㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀
㪈㪇
㪨㪈 㪘㩷㩷 㪘㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪊 㪎 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴 㪈 㪈㪈
㪨 㪈 㪙㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㪙 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴
㪐 㪈㪌
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴
㪈㪍 㪈㪋 㪈㪉 㪐
㪊㪐
㪊㪊
㪌㪌
㪨㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪌 㪈㪇 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴 㪍 㪈㪍
㪊㪌 㪊㪊
㪉㪇 㪉㪍
㪍 㪈㪇 㪉㪇 㪎
㪉㪇㩼
㪊㪈 㪉㪏
㪊㪌
㪋㪅㪇 㪴 㩷 㪊㪅㪍㪁 㪊㪅㪍
㪈㪍
㪍㪐
㪉㪍 㪊㪌
㪨㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪇㩼
㪋㪇
㪈㪌
㪋㪇㩼
㪉㪌
㪋㪊 㪊㪌
㪋㪋 㪋㪈
㪈㪌
㪋㪇
㪊㪉 㪍㪇㩼
㪈㪑㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀
㪉㪑㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀
㪋㪑㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀
㪌㪑㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀
㪝㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㫅㫆㪅
㪠㫋㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫊㪅
㪈㪈 㪈
㪉㪅㪏 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪍 㪉㪅㪋
㪊
㪊㪅㪇 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪏 㪉㪅㪏
㪊
㪊㪅㪌 㪴㩷 㪊㪅㪈 㪊㪅㪇
㪍
㪊㪅㪎 㪴㩷 㪊㪅㪉 㪊㪅㪈
㪈㪐 㪉㪌
㪈㪐
㪉㪌
㪊㪇 㪏㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪊㪑㩿㪖㪀
Figure4c. Comparison of opinions between those who have knowledge on CCS and those who do not, after providing information, Internet survey (2007)
4808
6
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
(4) Comparison in opinions between 2003 and 2007 surveys, after providing information In the 2003 survey, we provided the same package of information to all respondent and asked if they were for or against CCS implementation, since we had recognized respondents in general had little knowledge on CCS. This also was done in the 2007 survey. In this latter case, the basic information was provided to all respondent was eventually the same as in 2003. Therefore the results are comparable with the 2003 results. Efforts were taken to maintain scientific neutrality in terms of contents of the information provided in each survey, with an exception that the 2007 survey included the quotation from the IPCC Special Report. The mean values of all responses after providing information on CCS was 3.40 in the 2003 survey and 3.44 in the 2007 door-to-door survey and 3.65 in the 2007 Internet survey. No statistically significant change was observed in comparing the 2003 results to the 2007 door-to-door survey. By contrast, a positive, statistically significant difference was observed with greater acceptance for those participating in the 2007 Internet survey compared to those participating in the 2003 door-todoor survey. As for the responses to Question 2 which asked opinions about implementation by technology type, some interesting observations were noted., Unlike Question 1A on implementing CCS as a part of climate policy portfolio, the mean value of each technology was below 3 in all other types than the two geological types in the 2007 Internet samples, showing that the overall response to implementation of specific technologies is in slightly negative direction. Such tendency is in consistent with the 2003 survey although with a slight shift to positive direction (statistically significant in mean values for all types of CCS technologies except for ocean dilution type, P < 0.1). In this context, it is noted that the 2007 Internet respondents show some preference in geological offshore type with the value of 3.2. 4.4 Analysis of influence to opinion formation depending on difference of information provided (1) Changes in opinion of those who have knowledge on CCS before and after providing information (internal test) Table 3 shows comparisons of changes Table 3㩷 Change before-and-after providing information on CCS to those in mean values of responses before and who have knowledge on CCS after receiving technical information of B1-B5# B2#-B5 (pooled) B1 (pooled) B2# B3 B4 B5 particular CCS types by subsample. The Basic information based on IPCC special report differences may not have been sufficiently Current Natural Whole detected in the subsample who received Newspaper No other measures and sample informati is not industrial Plans by information by newspaper (Group B1) and on enough analogue EU those who received information through 㨈N Question 324 30 294 200 35 32 27 three supplemental information sources Overall CCS (5 scales) 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 (B3-5) due to their relatively small size in Overall CCS (2 scales) Ocean, Dilution type -0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 number of the sample size. However, Ocean, Lake type -0.1 -0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 0.0 -0.2 statistical significance was observed in the Geological, Onshore -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 following cases: in all samples and in all Geological, Offshore 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.1 questions. Public preference for CCS 㪁**:P<1%, **:P<5%, *:P<10% types was decreased by approx. 0.1 for the Note: The number in the table indicate difference in means :[mean after providing group receiving information about the information]- [ mean before providing information ]㩷 technology on CCS. The group who received information from with newspaper articles, preference was largely decreased by 0.5 for the two ocean CCS types. Both the information based on IPCC and that on newspaper articles commonly contained explanations on CCS technologies, effects and risk information. In addition, newspaper articles provided specific information that some organizations/countries have negative opinions on CCS. These were characterized from IPCC information with descriptions such as “there are concerns about impacts on ecosystems and about if CCS would discourage energy conservation” and “reluctance in developing countries that are keen to make steady effort for energy conservation, such as ‘issues of geological CCS should be carefully investigated. . ***
***
***
***
***
**
***
***
**
***
***
*
**
* *
*
**
4809
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
7
(2) Influence of difference in information provided in the subsamples: all respondents (external test) Since the B1 cohort was only provided with 㪇㩼 㪈㪇㩼 㪉㪇㩼 㪊㪇㩼 㪋㪇㩼 㪌㪇㩼 㪍㪇㩼 㪎㪇㩼 㪏㪇㩼 㪐㪇㩼 㪈㪇㪇㩼 news paper article on CCS and other cohorts 㪙㪈 㪉㪉㩼 㪊㪏㩼 㪊㪋㩼 㪍㩼 㪇㩼 㪙㪉 㪈㪌㩼 㪊㪋㩼 㪐㩼 㪋㩼 㪊㪏㩼 (B2-B5) were provided with CCS information 㪉㩼 㪈㪊㩼 㪊㪎㩼 㪈㪊㩼 㪊㪌㩼 㪙㪊 㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㪙㪋 㪈㪉㩼 㪊㪏㩼 㪈㪊㩼 㪊㩼 㪊㪋㩼 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅 㪙㪌 㪈㪋㩼 㪈㪇㩼 㪉㩼 㪊㪏㩼 㪊㪍㩼 from IPCC special report (plus different 㪙㪈 㪈㪏㩼 㪊㪌㩼 㪈㪎㩼 㪇㩼 㪊㪇㩼 supplemental information), we pooled B2-B5 as 㪙㪉 㪊㪋㩼 㪌㩼 㪈㪇㩼 㪉㪐㩼 㪉㪈㩼 㪋㪈㩼 㪉㪈㩼 㪌㩼 㪏㩼 㪉㪌㩼 㪙㪊 a group sharing IPCC information, and then 㪙㪋 㪊㪏㩼 㪎㩼 㪏㩼 㪉㪍㩼 㪉㪉㩼 㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㪋㪊㩼 㪊㩼 㪎㩼 㪉㪏㩼 㪈㪐㩼 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼 㪙㪌 compared with the B1 cohort. The result is as 㪙㪈 㪍㩼 㪐㩼 㪊㪐㩼 㪉㪍㩼 㪉㪇㩼 㪍㩼 㪏㩼 㪉㪉㩼 㪉㪏㩼 㪊㪌㩼 㪙㪉 shown in Figure 6. Between the two groups, a 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪙㪊 㪏㩼 㪊㪋㩼 㪊㪇㩼 㪏㩼 㪉㪇㩼 㪙㪋 㪌㩼 㪐㩼 㪉㪏㩼 㪈㪏㩼 㪋㪈㩼 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 statistically significant difference was observed 㪉㪍㩼 㪌㩼 㪋㪊㩼 㪉㪈㩼 㪙㪌 㪍㩼 㪙㪈 㪊㪇㩼 㪏㩼 㪐㩼 㪈㪍㩼 㪊㪎㩼 in the questions on implementing CCS on the 㪊㪉㩼 㪈㪇㩼 㪎㩼 㪈㪐㩼 㪊㪈㩼 㪙㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪙㪊 㪍㩼 㪈㪉㩼 㪈㪊㩼 㪊㪋㩼 㪊㪋㩼 two ocean types and on the geological offshore 㪈㪊㩼 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 㪙㪋 㪋㩼 㪈㪊㩼 㪊㪎㩼 㪊㪉㩼 㪍㩼 㪊㪈㩼 㪈㪏㩼 㪋㪈㩼 㪙㪌 㪋㩼 type. Regarding CCS implementation, the group 㪈㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀 㪉㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀 㪊㩷㩿㪖㪀 㪋㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀 㪌㩷㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀 㩷 with IPCC information for all questions showed Figure 5.㩷 Difference of opinion on CCS among sub-sample provided opinions with higher preference than that for the with difference information on CCS (N =1620 )㩷 other groups. These results imply that information included only in the article of a newspaper that is about concerns on CCS expressed by an expert and a country influenced people in forming of their opinion on CCS implementation. 㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼
4.4 Influential factors on understanding CCS Exploratory factor analysis was applied to results of 45 questions on respondents’ views on CCS and global warming to identify the distinct influential factors attributed for respondent understanding of CCS. The four factors obtained by the factor analysis are interpreted below. The labels for each factors was determined based on subjective assessment of the similarities in the survey questions associated with each loading factor: Factor 1: risks and leakage (respondents’ concern about environmental impacts and risks caused by injection of CO2 and possibility of leakage) Factor 2: effectiveness of CCS (respondents’ Factor - 0.21*** 0.67*** A䋩General acceptance (CCS general)
Effectiveness of CCS
Responsibility
- 0.15*** Use of fossil fuel
Factor - 0.40*** B) Implementation (Geological Storage)
0.54***
㪈㪎 㪈㪊
㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪠㪧㪚㪚
㪉㪉 㪈㪋
㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪠㪧㪚㪚
㪐
㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪠㪧㪚㪚
㪐 㪎
㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪠㪧㪚㪚
㪐 㪌
㪉㪎
㪇㩼
㪊㪅㪍 㪕㪁 㪊㪅㪎
㪈㪎 㪉㪈
㪇㪅㪎 㪇㪅㪎
㪍㪌 㪍㪍
㪊㪍
㪈㪏
㪈㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀 㪊㩷㩿㪖㪀 㪌㩷㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀 㪠㩷㪽㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㪻㫀㫊㪸㪾㫉㪼㪼㪅
㪋㪉 㪋㪇
㪉㪎 㪉㪇 㪉㪇
㪈㪍 㪈㪍 㪉㪇㩼
㪊㪏
㪊㪇
㪊㪍 㪊㪐
㪊㪌
㪊㪐 㪊㪏
㪉㪈 㪉㪍 㪉㪏
㪊㪎 㪊㪍 㪋㪇㩼
㪊㪋
㪊㪇 㪊㪉 㪍㪇㩼
㪏㪇㩼
㪍 㪈㪈 㪊
㪉㪅㪉 㪕 㪁 㪁 㪁 㪉㪅㪌
㪈㪎
㪌
㪉㪅㪌 㪕 㪁 㪁 㪁 㪉㪅㪐
㪍 㪎
㪊㪅㪇 㪊㪅㪈
㪏 㪈㪈
㪊㪅㪈 㪕 㪁 㪁 㪊㪅㪊
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪉㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀 㪋㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀 㪠㩾㪻㩷㪸㪾㫉㪼㪼㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫀㫅㪾㩷㫆㫅㩷㪺㫆㫅㪻㫀㫋㫀㫆㫅㫊㪅
䊶For questions on CCS (5 level scale) and 4 types of CCS, N=306䋨those who were provided with newspaper article䋩䋬N=1316 those who were provided with information from IPCC special report on CCS) For questions on CCS(2 level scale)䋬N=251䋨news paper䋩䋬N=1042(IPCC) 䊶***:P<1%, **:P<5%, *:P<10% (difference in mean)
㩷
Using the results of the exploratory factor analysis, we conducted a path analysis (i.e., structural equation modeling, SEM) to obtain a statistical acceptable structural model based on the presumed relationship between respondents’ views on CCS and global warming (observed variables), the latent four influential factors, and the level of acceptability of CCS
Effectiveness of CCS
0.11** - 0.05*
Note)The numbers attached to paths indicate standardized path coefficients. ***: P<0.01, **: P<0.05, *: P<0.1
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪠㪧㪚㪚
㪦㫍㪼㫉㪸㫃㫃㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪉㪌
Risk and leakage
Responsibility error
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪊 㪈㪉 㪠㪧㪚㪚 㪈 㪈㪈
Figure 6.㩷 Difference of opinion among respondents who received IPCC information or newspaper information on CCS, 07 survey (Internet, whole sample: after providing information understanding of effectiveness of CCS as a mitigation option for climate change) Factor 3: responsibility (respondent awareness of societal responsibility for mitigation of CO2) Factor 4: fossil fuel use (respondent concern that CCS would allow continuation of current usage levels of fossil fuels)
Risk and leakage
0.12***
error
㪦㫍㪼㫉㪸㫃㫃㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
Use of fossil fuel
㩷
4810
8
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
(observed variables). We also assumed two latent variables (“General acceptance (CCS general)” and “Implementation (Geological storage)”) between four factors and acceptance of CCS or geological storage (four observed variables) as constructs for understanding the acceptability of CCS or implementation of each type of geological storage in this model. Figure 7, illustrates the relationship between the four factors, and the two latent variables (“General acceptance (CCS general).” Implementation (Geological storage),” also was incorporated into the e path analysis. According to the size of the standardized path coefficients, the “Effectiveness of CCS” factor consistently influences both the “General acceptance (CCS general)” and “Implementation (Geological storage).” Meanwhile, the negative influence of “Risks and leakage” on “Implementation (Geological storage)” is much larger than that on “General acceptance (CCS general)” as the path coefficient to “Implementation (Geological storage)” (-0.40) is twice as large as that on “General acceptance (CCS general)” (-0.21). On the contrary, the negative influence of the “Fossil fuel use” on the “General acceptance (CCS general)” is about two times as large as that on “Implementation (Geological storage),” as the path coefficients, (-0.15) and (-005) indicate. In summary, understanding the effectiveness of CCS would be a key factor of positively influencing the public in both general CCS acceptance and geologic implementation. The factor for concern about the risks and leakage of CCS would mainly negatively influence public opinion regarding the implementation (Geological storage). Similarly, the factor for concern that CCS would allow continuation of current usage levels of fossil fuels would mainly negatively influence general CCS acceptance of CCS..
5. Conclusion The Japanese public surveys regarding recognition status and opinions of CCS were conducted, and the following results were obtained. First, not many people still know about CCS. And second, those who have knowledge on CCS show a preference for CCS implementation; however; preference was decreased after obtaining information which we considered was neutral on CCS. These results suggest a possibility that information on negative aspects of CCS (risks, etc.) may not be well known in the general public. We also found that after providing different information on CCS to respondents, in the group with the newspaper articles which we considered neutral, preference on CCS was slightly lower in comparison with other groups that received information from the IPCC Special Report. The newspaper articles contained the information on negative opinions against CCS that went beyond the information of risks provided in the PCC Special Report. It is assumed that such negative opinions may have influenced opinion formation of respondents. Since CCS is a new technology, information about how other people or entities evaluate CCS is a major influence. The views of those assigned to the sub-sample provided with industrial and natural analogue of preference on geological storage was slightly higher in comparison with other groups. This implies information on natural or industrial analogue would help communicate information on risk to the public in a positive way. As the result of path analysis to data of a public survey, assuming four factors -- (1) risks and leakage, (2) effectiveness of CCS, (3) responsibility, and (4) fossil fuel use -- we found that the factor of understanding the effectiveness of CCS is the most positively influential for general acceptance of CCS and implementation of geological storage. The factor of risks and leakage became much more influential negatively in the implementation of geological storage compared to general acceptance of CCS. This implies implementation of CC2 geological storage needs careful communication of risk. Reference 1) Itaoka K, Saito A, Akai M. Public Acceptance of CO2 Capture and Storage Technology: A Survey of Public Opinion to Explore Influential Factors. In: Rubin ES, Keith DW, Gilboy CF, editors. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations, Cheltenham, UK: IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme; 2004. 2) Itaoka K, Saito A, Akai M. A path analysis for public survey data on social acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technology Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cheltenham, UK: IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme; 2006. 3) IPCC; IPCC Special Report. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary for Policy makers and Technical Summary; 2005.
Energy Procedia
Energy (2009) 4803–4810 EnergyProcedia Procedia1 00 (2008) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/XXX
GHGT-9
Influential information and factors for social acceptance of CCS: the 2nd round survey of public opinion in Japan Kenshi Itaokaa*, Yuki Okudaa, Aya Saitoa, Makoto Akaib 㨎
a Mizuho Information & Research Institute, Inc., 3-1 Kanda Nishiki-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0085 Japan National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology(AIST), Namiki 1-2, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki Pref. 305-8564 Japan
Elsevier use only: Received date here; revised date here; accepted date here
Abstract A public survey was conducted concerning carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) in the months of February and April 2007 in Japan, Previously another CCS survey took place in December 2003, and a set of the questions asked in the 2007 survey were purposely the same as that used in the 2003 survey, Japanese adults were randomly selected to answer a questionnaire either in printed format or in online format. Several versions of the questionnaire were used, and each contained a different educational part, imparting relevant CCS information. 334 people successfully responded to our paper survey in Tokyo and Sapporo while 2156 people completed our online survey across the nation. The questionnaire for the survey contained 5 sets of different information package on CCS and questions asking pros and cons on CCS implementation to analyze influence of information provided on CCS. Based on the results of survey we found: that not many people still know about CCS. Those who have knowledge on CCS show a preference for CCS implementation, however; preference was decreased after obtaining information which we considered was neutral on CCS. These results suggest a possibility that information on negative aspects of CCS (risks, etc.) would not be well known in the general public. We also found that preference for CSS decreased slightly after providing different information on CCS to respondents in the group with the newspaper articles which we considered neutral in comparison with other groups. The newspaper articles contained the information on negative opinions against CCS besides risk-related information as well as information based on an IPCC Special Report: it is assumed that such negative opinions may have influenced opinion formation of respondents. Since CCS is new technology, information about how other people or entities evaluate CCS would influence public opinion. In the sub-sample provided with industrial and natural analogues of preference on geological storage, the views were slightly more positive about CSS in comparison with reported opinions of other groups. This implies information on natural or industrial analogue would help manage perception of risk in a positive way. The result of path analysis to data of a public survey identified four factors, (1) risks and leakage, (2) effectiveness of CCS, (3) responsibility, and (4) fossil fuel use. We found that the factor of understanding the effectiveness of CCS is most positively influential for general acceptance of CCS. I Implementation of geological storage and the factor of risks and leakage become much more influential negatively in the implementation of geological storage compared to general acceptance of CCS, implying that implementation of CC2 geological storage also needs careful communication of risk. c 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: carbon capture and storage; public survey; public opinion
* Corresponding author. Tel. +81-3-5281-5295, Fax. +81-3-5281-5466. E-mail address: [email protected].
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.307
4804
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810
2
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
1. Introduction CO2 capture and storage technology (CCS) has been attracting attention as an emerging technology that has large potential for CO2 emission mitigation. However, there are some unknown aspects about its social acceptance since characteristics of this technology substantially differ from other available CO2 mitigation technologies, such as leakage risk of CO2 from storage sites. Given this situation, the authors designed a survey questionnaire for assessing Japanese public opinion, which was conducted in February and March 2007 to investigate the extent of recognition and latent social acceptance on global warming mitigation measures including CCS, as well as the kind of factors/that would influence their views. The survey in 2007 was designed to provide different kind of information on CCS to subsamples. This allowed analysis of the variance of acceptance level depending on available information can be analyzed, which is the focus of this report. 2. Implementation of the survey The public survey was conducted in February and March 2007 in (1) in Tokyo and City of Sapporo by door-todoor method using printed format and (2) across the nation via the Internet using an online format. Respondents were selected by area sampling for the door-to-door survey and by stratified random sampling from registrants of a survey company’s panel for the Internet survey. Itaoka, et al. (2004, 2006) earlier reported on the results of a doorto-door survey in Tokyo and City of Sapporo in December 2003; the questions in this survey were largely replicated in the two 2007 surveys. Table 1 shows attributes of the samples of the 2007’s door-to-door and Internet surveys as well as the 2003’s door-to-door survey. The response rates of 2007 door-to-door survey were 37% and 30% for the one administered via the Internet.. Table 1. Characteristics of respondent
9 JQNGUCO RNG +PVGTPGV
Year of Education
Sex
Age
Feb-Mar 2007 Dec 2003 Feb-Mar 2007 (Paper, (Paper, Sample (Internet) Door-to-door) Door-to-door) Venue Sapporo&Tokyo Sapporo&Tokyo Nation No. of valid sample 1006 334 2156 Collection rate 64% 37% 30% 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s-70s over 80 Average
15% 18% 23% 21% 23% 0% 47
18% 22% 16% 19% 16% 8% 46
16% 20% 17% 20% 28% 0% 48
Male
49%
49%
49%
Female
51%
51%
51%
Junior high. (9 yrs) High school (12 yrs) 2-year college/ vocational school (14 University (16 yrs) Post graduate (18 yrs) Average
8% 41%
10% 42%
5% 35%
22%
20%
23%
28% 1% 13.4
28% 1% 13.3
35% 3% 13.9
3 & Q[QWMPQY % % 5 ! ; GU ޓ+MPQ Y VQUQO GGZVGPV
㪥㫆 䋨㪠㩷㪻㫆㫅㩾㫋㩷㫂㫅㫆㫎㪅㪆㩷㪠㩾㫍㪼㩷㪿㪼㪸㫉㪻㩷㫆㪽㩷㫀㫋㪅䋩
3 # TG[QWHQTQTCICKPUV% % 5 !
FKXGTIGCVTCPFQO
2 TQXKFGKPHQTO CVKQP
$ 0 GY URCRGTCTVKENGUVCMKPIPGWVTCNRQUKVKQPHQT% % 5 $ $ CUKEKPHQTO CVKQPQP% % 5 +2 % % $ $ % WTTGPVO GCUWTGUKUPQVGPQWIJ
#
$ $ 0 CVWTCNCPFKPFWUVTKCNCPCNQIWG $ $ KPVTQFWEG< ' 2
3 3 WGUVKQPUHQTHCEVQTCPCN[UKU㧔SWGUVKQPU UECNGU㧕 2 TQXKFG
# CU
KPHQTO C VKQ P
Y KVJ$
$ $
3 # TG[QWHQTQTCICKPUV% % 5 ! 0 WO DGTUKPRCTGPVJGUGUKPFKECVGXCNKFTGURQPUG
Figure 1. respondents’ characteristics
3. Questionnaire design 3.1 Structure of the questionnaire The structure of the questionnaire for the Internet survey is shown in Figure 1. The first question asked respondents to self-identify themselves based on their recognition of CCS. Specifically, respondents were grouped into one of two categories: (a) “I know to some extent.” and (b) “I don’t know” or “I’ve heard of it.” To those who responded as “I know to some extent,” another question was given to ask about their views for or against CCS implementation in the second question. In the third question, information on CCS was provided to all respondents. This then corresponded to45 questions in the fourth set of questions that contributed to conducting a factor analysis on respondents’ views on CCS and global warming. The third and fourth parts of the survey were administered in reverse order to Group A2 (far left in Figure 1) that comprised roughly a half of the “I know to some extent” respondents. Finally, the fifth question asked the same question as the first one to assess any changes in opinion for
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
4805 3
or against CCS implementation based on new information provided about the application of this technology. 3.2 Internal tests and external tests The questionnaire was designed to conduct internal and external tests to examine effects of the information provided to respondents. As Figure 1 shows, the questions designed to probe about respondent views for or against CCS implementation were given two times before and after providing information about this technology to those who responded as “I know it to some extent” in the first question of the survey. Internal tests were conducted by examining the mean change of responses between the two questions. The other respondents who responded as “I’ve heard of it” and “I don’t know” in the first question were only asked about their views for or against CCS implementation at the end of the survey following their receipt of information about the technology. All of the respondents were eventually provided with one of five different information packages on CCS in the questionnaire. External test were conducted by comparing the answers to the questions of five subsamples which were provided with different information package. 3.3 Information treatment We prepared five type s of information about CCS for resp9ondents. B1 quotes newspaper articles on CCS. B2 and A2 give technological explanations and describe major characteristics of CCS as reported in the IPCC Special Report on CCS. B3-B5 add three types of supplemental information to the IPCC information in B2: Specifically, B3 offered a message from distinguished scientists to raise public awareness, saying that existing mitigation measures cannot achieve sufficient reduction of CO2 emissions; B4 contained analogue information (industrial activities and natural phenomenon that are similar to CCS); and B5 describes the CCS introduction plan in Europe (The EU Flagship Programme for CO Capture and Storage (CCS) ZEP). For technological explanation on CCS, the questionnaire discussed four methods of CO2 storage were included (ocean storage types and geological storage types). For samples of door-to-door survey (n=334), we used the same questionnaire form as Subsample B2. 4. Analysis 4.1 Public recognition of CCS Figure 2 shows the result of the first question about recognition on CCS,. It was designed with three ordinal scales: (1) I know to some extent; I2) I’ve heard of it; and (3) I don’t know. Public recognition of CCS in the 2003 survey administered to the general public in Tokyo and Sapporo revealed that 9% of respondents knew to some extent and another 22% “reporting that they have heard of it.. These respective rates in the 2007 door-to-door survey are 7% and 12% and 18% and 33% for the Internet survey. There is statistical significance (P < 0.01) in recognition rates between the samples of door-to-door and Internet surveys; Internet panel registrants show higher recognition rates than general public in Tokyo and Sapporo. The result shows that information on CCS is becoming more available among people who have good information literacy such as the registrants of the Internet panel.
4.2 Public opinion about CCS implementation The question about CCS implementation has three items and was designed with six variations in total. In the first question, 1A, we asked respondents’ views about being for or against implementing CCS as a part of climate policy portfolio using a 5-level Likert scale from 1 (No) to 5 (Yes). Question 1B was as a follow-up of 1A and asked those other than the group who reported a 5 (Yes) on the first question if they were “fundamentally no” or whether it “depends on conditions.” In the second item, we asked respondents to assess their views for or against CCS implementation, again using a5-level Likert scale. As with 1A, we did this for each of the four technologies: (1) ocean dilution type, (2) ocean lake type, (3) geological onshore and (4) geological offshore. The results are shown in
4806
4
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
Figures 3 and 4. As for the question that probed respondents to state whether they were for or against CCS implementation by technology type, the mean value for each technology is consistent with what was found with the 2003 surveys. “Ocean dilution type” is most preferred followed by “ocean lake type.” “Geological onshore” is the third most popular choice and “geological offshore” is the least favorable choice. (1) Current opinions of those who have knowledge on CCS As reported earlier, Question 1A asked respondents about their knowledge of implementing CCS as a part of a larger climate policy portfolio. In this second analysis, we restricted the survey to only those who reported some familiarity with CSS. Before respondents were provided with technical information, the mean results (on a 5-[point Likert scale) about their support for the technology equaled were 3.86 for those in the door-to-door survey and 4.11 for those responding to the Internet survey., These results show that over two-thirds of these self-identified knowledgeable respondents had positive opinions about CSS (see legend A0 in Figure 3). Put simply, people with some knowledge on CCS y tend to have a favorable opinion on implementing CCS as a part of a larger climate policy portfolio. Second, in the question to the same respondents on their support for the four CCS technologies (Question 2) (legend A0 in Figure 3), the mean results in door-to-door survey were 3 or more (3.00-3.39) for all technologies. Thus, the public either was neutral or positive about their implementation. By contrast, those polled in the Internet survey had mean results that ranged from 2.88 to 3.73, indicating a large difference in their level of acceptability of the four types of CSS technology: Other than ocean dilution, respondents held positive opinions, with 60% supporting the two geological types of CSS. The result shows that people with knowledge on CCS in the Internet survey often tend to make their choice dependent upon the specific technological type.. (2) Changes in opinions of those who have knowledge on CCS, before and after providing information (internal test) This section describes opinions of those who have knowledge on CCS after providing information mainly quoted from questions (1) and (2), including IPCC Special Report (seen in Legend A0 and A in Figures 3). As for implementing CCS as a part of climate policy portfolio (Question 1A), there is no major observed change: respondents tend to choose a more positive view after receiving information. This was true in both door-to-door surveys (statistically insignificant mean change from 3.86 to 4.11) and in the Internet surveys (; with a statistically significant change of mean value from 4.11 to 4.02, P < 0.1). As for the question on CCS implementation by technology (Question 2), there was a change to somewhat negative direction with the door-to-door survey as the mean value equal to 3 or below for the two ocean storage types (statistically significant in mean value for ocean dilution type only, P < 0.1). By contrast, respondents prefer the two geological storage types with a mean value of 3 or more observed for the door-to-door survey (a scarce decrease was noted that is not statistically significant). By comparison, participants to the Internet survey expressed opinions that correlated with a slight shift tin a negative direction observed for all of the four technologies (the two ocean storage types are statistically significant in mean values, P < 0.1 respectively). These results show that people with knowledge on CCS have strong opinions that are not much affected with information temporarily provided in the questionnaire. (3) Comparison of opinions between those who have and who do not have knowledge on CCS, after providing information (external test) Somewhat characteristic in the 2007 survey was the difference in opinions between those who have and who do not have knowledge on CCS (Figures 4). Basically, those who have knowledge on CCS are more likely to choose “Yes” than those who do not have such knowledge for not only implementing CCS as a part of climate policy portfolio but also for implementation of each CCS technology (regarding the four technologies, no statistical significance was observed in the door-to-door survey while a statistical significance of P <0.01 noted for the Internet survey). This tendency was also observed in the 2003 survey, but it seems to have become stronger in the 2007 survey. In terms of geological storage, in particular, responses from those who have knowledge on CCS are above 3 in mean values, in both door-to-door and Internet surveys, showing that positive opinion to support CCS implementation is
4807
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
5
getting stronger among people with knowledge on CCS at this stage. Q1A Yes / No about implementing CCS as a part of climate policy portfolio? (5 level rating scale) Q1B Fundamentally No or “It depends”? (Dichotomous choice: 2 level rating scale) Q2 Yes / No about implementation by type of CCS? 㩷 (5 level rating scale) Ao: Respondents who chose “I know CCS to some extent.”
㪨 㪈 㪘㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㪘㩷㩷 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀 㪨 㪈 㪙 㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼
㪏 㪍 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴 㪈 㪈㪉 㪈㪌 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪈㪏 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴
㪊㪉
㪉㪍 㪌㪎
㪉㪏
㪉㪐
㪊㪐
㪊㪅㪍 㪴㩷 㪊㪅㪋 㪊㪅㪋
㪈㪌
㪍㪎 㪉
㪊㪊 㪊㪋
㪉㪈 㪉㪉
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴
㪈㪌 㪈㪏
㪉㪏 㪉㪐
㪨㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴
㪈㪏 㪈㪌
㪉㪋 㪉㪎
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪴 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪏㪎㪈㪴
㪈㪌 㪈㪊
㪊㪊 㪊㪍 㪉㪏
㪉㪇
㪋㪇
㪊㪍 㪋㪌
㪈㪍 㪉㪈
㪇㩼
㪈㪇 㪎 㪈
㪊㪎
㪉㪇㩼
㪉㪑㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀
㪋㪑㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀
㪌㪑㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀
㪝㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㫅㫆㪅
㪠㫋㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫊㪅
㪈㪉
㪍㪇㩼
㪈
㪘㫆㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪉㪴 㪌 㪐 㪉㪍 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪐㪴 㪈㪇
㪨 㪈 㪙 㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪘㫆㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪋㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪉㪴
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪉㪊㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴
㪈㪎
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪉㪊㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴
㪈㪎 㪈㪐
㪈㪏
㪊㪉 㪊㪎
㪐 㪌
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪉㪊㪴 㪋 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴 㪌
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪉㪊㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴
㪊㪅㪐 㪋㪅㪈
㪊㪍 㪊㪎
㪌㪌 㪌㪏
㪊㪊
㪈㪊
㪉㪅㪎 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪍 㪉㪅㪍
㪈㪎
㪎 㪋
㪉㪅㪐 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪏 㪉㪅㪏
㪏㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪊㪑㩿㪖㪀
Figure4a. Comparison of opinions between those who have knowledge on CCS and those who do not, after providing information, door-to-door survey (2003)㩷
㪐
㪐 㪈㪇
㪈㪎
㪉㪇㩼
㪉㪑㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀 㪌㪑㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀
㪝㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㫅㫆㪅
㪠㫋㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫊㪅
㪈㪇 㪈㪐
㪊㪌 㪈㪋
㪐 㪈㪋
㪊㪐 㪉㪐
㪉㪋
㪋㪑㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀
㪈㪋
㪈㪎 㪈㪋
㪋㪊
㪋㪇㩼
㪈㪑㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀
㪉㪉
㪉㪐 㪉㪋
㪊㪇
㪈㪎 㪈㪐
㪇㩼
㪊㪌
㪊㪌
㪉㪋
㪉㪉 㪉㪋
㪨 㪈 㪘 㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩷㩷 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀 㪨㪈 㪙㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㪙 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪈㪋
㪍㪇㩼
㪈㪎 㪈㪐 㪏㪇㩼
㪨㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪏㪎㪴
㪉㪇
㪊㪅㪉 㪉㪅㪐
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪏㪏㪴
㪈㪐 㪈㪌
㪊㪅㪉 㪊㪅㪈
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪊㪅㪋 㪊㪅㪊
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪎㪏㪴
㪨 㪈 㪙㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㪙 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪉㪊 㪉㪇 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪈 㪎 㪈㪌 㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪌 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪐
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴
㪈㪊 㪈㪍
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴
㪐 㪈㪉
㪨㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪘㫆䇭㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪊㪍 㪋㪇 㪌㪋 㪌㪌 㪉㪌 㪉㪍
㪉㪇 㪉㪇
㪌 㪏 㪍 㪈㪇 㪋 㪏 㪌 㪈㪇 㪇㩼
㪋㪅㪈 㪋㪅㪇
㪋㪇 㪊㪌
㪊㪏 㪊㪌 㪊㪍 㪊㪊
㪊㪉 㪊㪈
㪉㪇㩼 㪉㪑㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀
㪋㪑㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀
㪌㪑㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀
㪝㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㫅㫆㪅
㪠㫋㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫊㪅
㪉㪉 㪉㪌 㪊㪌 㪊㪌
㪉㪏 㪉㪏
㪈㪑㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀
㪈㪋 㪈㪌
㪍㪇㩼
㪉㪅㪐 㪉㪅㪏
㪐
㪊㪅㪉 㪊㪅㪇
㪉㪇 㪈㪐
㪊㪌 㪊㪉 㪋㪇㩼
㪏
㪊㪅㪍 㪊㪅㪌
㪉㪌 㪉㪌 㪏㪇㩼
㪊㪅㪎 㪊㪅㪎
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪊㪑㩿㪖㪀
Figure3b. Changes in opinions of those who have knowledge on CCS, before and after providing information, Internet survey (2007)
㪊㪎 㪌㪏
㪈㪇 㪈㪇
㪋㪅㪈 㪴㩷 㪊㪅㪋 㪊㪅㪋
㪈㪍
㪍㪎 㪉㪐
㪈㪋 㪊㪐 㪉㪋
㪉㪋 㪊㪇 㪉㪋
㪊㪎
㪊㪇
㪊㪏
㪊㪊
㪇㩼
㪋㪊
㪉㪊
㪈㪐 㪉㪇
㪉㪋
㪉㪇㩼
㪋㪇㩼
㪈㪑㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀
㪉㪑㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀
㪋㪑㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀
㪌㪑㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀
㪝㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㫅㫆㪅
㪠㫋㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫊㪅
㪈㪋
㪊㪋 㪈㪋
㪊㪍
㪉㪐
㪋㪉 㪍㪇㩼
㪌㪉
㪉㪅㪌 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪊 㪉㪅㪊
㪊
㪉㪅㪐 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪎 㪉㪅㪎
㪋
㪊㪅㪈 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪏 㪉㪅㪏
㪌
㪊㪅㪊 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪐 㪉㪅㪐
㪈㪍
㪈㪋
㪋㪋
㪈㪇
㪈㪎
㪉㪊
㪈㪋
㪈㪐
㪏㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪊㪑㩿㪖㪀
Figure4b. Comparison of opinions between those who have knowledge on CCS and those who do not, after providing information, door-to-door survey (2007) 㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼
㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼 㪨 㪈 㪘㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㪘㩷㩷 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪈㪴 㪌 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪎㪏㪴 㪈㪊
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪊㪑㩿㪖㪀
㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼
㪇 㪉㪍 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪐㪴 㪇 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪏㪎㪴 㪈 㪈㪉 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪉㪴 㪌 㪈㪎 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪉㪊㪐㪴
㪊㪅㪇 㪉㪅㪌
Figure3a. Changes in opinions of those who have knowledge on CCS, before and after providing information, door-to-door survey (2007)
㪉㪅㪏 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪎 㪉㪅㪌
㪍 㪈㪈 㪉
㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼 㪨 㪈 㪘 㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩷㩷 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪉㪅㪋 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪊 㪉㪅㪊
㪈㪍 㪉㪌
㪋㪌
㪋㪇㩼
㪈㪑㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀
㪈㪇
㪨㪈 㪘㩷㩷 㪘㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪊 㪎 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴 㪈 㪈㪈
㪨 㪈 㪙㩷㩷㪚㪚㪪 㪙 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴
㪐 㪈㪌
㪨 㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴
㪈㪍 㪈㪋 㪈㪉 㪐
㪊㪐
㪊㪊
㪌㪌
㪨㪉 㩷㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㩷 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴 㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴
㪨 㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪘㩷㪲㪥㪔㪊㪌㪏㪴 㪌 㪈㪇 㪙㩷㪲㪥㪔㪈㪍㪋㪉㪴 㪍 㪈㪍
㪊㪌 㪊㪊
㪉㪇 㪉㪍
㪍 㪈㪇 㪉㪇 㪎
㪉㪇㩼
㪊㪈 㪉㪏
㪊㪌
㪋㪅㪇 㪴 㩷 㪊㪅㪍㪁 㪊㪅㪍
㪈㪍
㪍㪐
㪉㪍 㪊㪌
㪨㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪇㩼
㪋㪇
㪈㪌
㪋㪇㩼
㪉㪌
㪋㪊 㪊㪌
㪋㪋 㪋㪈
㪈㪌
㪋㪇
㪊㪉 㪍㪇㩼
㪈㪑㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀
㪉㪑㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀
㪋㪑㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀
㪌㪑㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀
㪝㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㫅㫆㪅
㪠㫋㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫊㪅
㪈㪈 㪈
㪉㪅㪏 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪍 㪉㪅㪋
㪊
㪊㪅㪇 㪴㩷 㪉㪅㪏 㪉㪅㪏
㪊
㪊㪅㪌 㪴㩷 㪊㪅㪈 㪊㪅㪇
㪍
㪊㪅㪎 㪴㩷 㪊㪅㪉 㪊㪅㪈
㪈㪐 㪉㪌
㪈㪐
㪉㪌
㪊㪇 㪏㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪊㪑㩿㪖㪀
Figure4c. Comparison of opinions between those who have knowledge on CCS and those who do not, after providing information, Internet survey (2007)
4808
6
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
(4) Comparison in opinions between 2003 and 2007 surveys, after providing information In the 2003 survey, we provided the same package of information to all respondent and asked if they were for or against CCS implementation, since we had recognized respondents in general had little knowledge on CCS. This also was done in the 2007 survey. In this latter case, the basic information was provided to all respondent was eventually the same as in 2003. Therefore the results are comparable with the 2003 results. Efforts were taken to maintain scientific neutrality in terms of contents of the information provided in each survey, with an exception that the 2007 survey included the quotation from the IPCC Special Report. The mean values of all responses after providing information on CCS was 3.40 in the 2003 survey and 3.44 in the 2007 door-to-door survey and 3.65 in the 2007 Internet survey. No statistically significant change was observed in comparing the 2003 results to the 2007 door-to-door survey. By contrast, a positive, statistically significant difference was observed with greater acceptance for those participating in the 2007 Internet survey compared to those participating in the 2003 door-todoor survey. As for the responses to Question 2 which asked opinions about implementation by technology type, some interesting observations were noted., Unlike Question 1A on implementing CCS as a part of climate policy portfolio, the mean value of each technology was below 3 in all other types than the two geological types in the 2007 Internet samples, showing that the overall response to implementation of specific technologies is in slightly negative direction. Such tendency is in consistent with the 2003 survey although with a slight shift to positive direction (statistically significant in mean values for all types of CCS technologies except for ocean dilution type, P < 0.1). In this context, it is noted that the 2007 Internet respondents show some preference in geological offshore type with the value of 3.2. 4.4 Analysis of influence to opinion formation depending on difference of information provided (1) Changes in opinion of those who have knowledge on CCS before and after providing information (internal test) Table 3 shows comparisons of changes Table 3㩷 Change before-and-after providing information on CCS to those in mean values of responses before and who have knowledge on CCS after receiving technical information of B1-B5# B2#-B5 (pooled) B1 (pooled) B2# B3 B4 B5 particular CCS types by subsample. The Basic information based on IPCC special report differences may not have been sufficiently Current Natural Whole detected in the subsample who received Newspaper No other measures and sample informati is not industrial Plans by information by newspaper (Group B1) and on enough analogue EU those who received information through 㨈N Question 324 30 294 200 35 32 27 three supplemental information sources Overall CCS (5 scales) 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 (B3-5) due to their relatively small size in Overall CCS (2 scales) Ocean, Dilution type -0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 number of the sample size. However, Ocean, Lake type -0.1 -0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 0.0 -0.2 statistical significance was observed in the Geological, Onshore -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 following cases: in all samples and in all Geological, Offshore 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.1 questions. Public preference for CCS 㪁**:P<1%, **:P<5%, *:P<10% types was decreased by approx. 0.1 for the Note: The number in the table indicate difference in means :[mean after providing group receiving information about the information]- [ mean before providing information ]㩷 technology on CCS. The group who received information from with newspaper articles, preference was largely decreased by 0.5 for the two ocean CCS types. Both the information based on IPCC and that on newspaper articles commonly contained explanations on CCS technologies, effects and risk information. In addition, newspaper articles provided specific information that some organizations/countries have negative opinions on CCS. These were characterized from IPCC information with descriptions such as “there are concerns about impacts on ecosystems and about if CCS would discourage energy conservation” and “reluctance in developing countries that are keen to make steady effort for energy conservation, such as ‘issues of geological CCS should be carefully investigated. . ***
***
***
***
***
**
***
***
**
***
***
*
**
* *
*
**
4809
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
7
(2) Influence of difference in information provided in the subsamples: all respondents (external test) Since the B1 cohort was only provided with 㪇㩼 㪈㪇㩼 㪉㪇㩼 㪊㪇㩼 㪋㪇㩼 㪌㪇㩼 㪍㪇㩼 㪎㪇㩼 㪏㪇㩼 㪐㪇㩼 㪈㪇㪇㩼 news paper article on CCS and other cohorts 㪙㪈 㪉㪉㩼 㪊㪏㩼 㪊㪋㩼 㪍㩼 㪇㩼 㪙㪉 㪈㪌㩼 㪊㪋㩼 㪐㩼 㪋㩼 㪊㪏㩼 (B2-B5) were provided with CCS information 㪉㩼 㪈㪊㩼 㪊㪎㩼 㪈㪊㩼 㪊㪌㩼 㪙㪊 㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㪙㪋 㪈㪉㩼 㪊㪏㩼 㪈㪊㩼 㪊㩼 㪊㪋㩼 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅 㪙㪌 㪈㪋㩼 㪈㪇㩼 㪉㩼 㪊㪏㩼 㪊㪍㩼 from IPCC special report (plus different 㪙㪈 㪈㪏㩼 㪊㪌㩼 㪈㪎㩼 㪇㩼 㪊㪇㩼 supplemental information), we pooled B2-B5 as 㪙㪉 㪊㪋㩼 㪌㩼 㪈㪇㩼 㪉㪐㩼 㪉㪈㩼 㪋㪈㩼 㪉㪈㩼 㪌㩼 㪏㩼 㪉㪌㩼 㪙㪊 a group sharing IPCC information, and then 㪙㪋 㪊㪏㩼 㪎㩼 㪏㩼 㪉㪍㩼 㪉㪉㩼 㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㪋㪊㩼 㪊㩼 㪎㩼 㪉㪏㩼 㪈㪐㩼 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼 㪙㪌 compared with the B1 cohort. The result is as 㪙㪈 㪍㩼 㪐㩼 㪊㪐㩼 㪉㪍㩼 㪉㪇㩼 㪍㩼 㪏㩼 㪉㪉㩼 㪉㪏㩼 㪊㪌㩼 㪙㪉 shown in Figure 6. Between the two groups, a 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪙㪊 㪏㩼 㪊㪋㩼 㪊㪇㩼 㪏㩼 㪉㪇㩼 㪙㪋 㪌㩼 㪐㩼 㪉㪏㩼 㪈㪏㩼 㪋㪈㩼 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 statistically significant difference was observed 㪉㪍㩼 㪌㩼 㪋㪊㩼 㪉㪈㩼 㪙㪌 㪍㩼 㪙㪈 㪊㪇㩼 㪏㩼 㪐㩼 㪈㪍㩼 㪊㪎㩼 in the questions on implementing CCS on the 㪊㪉㩼 㪈㪇㩼 㪎㩼 㪈㪐㩼 㪊㪈㩼 㪙㪉 㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪙㪊 㪍㩼 㪈㪉㩼 㪈㪊㩼 㪊㪋㩼 㪊㪋㩼 two ocean types and on the geological offshore 㪈㪊㩼 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼 㪙㪋 㪋㩼 㪈㪊㩼 㪊㪎㩼 㪊㪉㩼 㪍㩼 㪊㪈㩼 㪈㪏㩼 㪋㪈㩼 㪙㪌 㪋㩼 type. Regarding CCS implementation, the group 㪈㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀 㪉㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀 㪊㩷㩿㪖㪀 㪋㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀 㪌㩷㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀 㩷 with IPCC information for all questions showed Figure 5.㩷 Difference of opinion on CCS among sub-sample provided opinions with higher preference than that for the with difference information on CCS (N =1620 )㩷 other groups. These results imply that information included only in the article of a newspaper that is about concerns on CCS expressed by an expert and a country influenced people in forming of their opinion on CCS implementation. 㪘㫍㪼㫉㪸㪾㪼
4.4 Influential factors on understanding CCS Exploratory factor analysis was applied to results of 45 questions on respondents’ views on CCS and global warming to identify the distinct influential factors attributed for respondent understanding of CCS. The four factors obtained by the factor analysis are interpreted below. The labels for each factors was determined based on subjective assessment of the similarities in the survey questions associated with each loading factor: Factor 1: risks and leakage (respondents’ concern about environmental impacts and risks caused by injection of CO2 and possibility of leakage) Factor 2: effectiveness of CCS (respondents’ Factor - 0.21*** 0.67*** A䋩General acceptance (CCS general)
Effectiveness of CCS
Responsibility
- 0.15*** Use of fossil fuel
Factor - 0.40*** B) Implementation (Geological Storage)
0.54***
㪈㪎 㪈㪊
㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㪛㫀㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪠㪧㪚㪚
㪉㪉 㪈㪋
㪦㪺㪼㪸㫅 㪣㪸㫂㪼㩷㫋㫐㫇㪼
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪠㪧㪚㪚
㪐
㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㫅㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪠㪧㪚㪚
㪐 㪎
㪞㪼㫆㫃㫆㪾㫀㪺㪸㫃 㪦㪽㪽㫊㪿㫆㫉㪼
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪠㪧㪚㪚
㪐 㪌
㪉㪎
㪇㩼
㪊㪅㪍 㪕㪁 㪊㪅㪎
㪈㪎 㪉㪈
㪇㪅㪎 㪇㪅㪎
㪍㪌 㪍㪍
㪊㪍
㪈㪏
㪈㩷㩿㪥㫆㪀 㪊㩷㩿㪖㪀 㪌㩷㩿㪰㪼㫊㪀 㪠㩷㪽㫌㫅㪻㪸㫄㪼㫅㫋㪸㫃㫃㫐㩷㪻㫀㫊㪸㪾㫉㪼㪼㪅
㪋㪉 㪋㪇
㪉㪎 㪉㪇 㪉㪇
㪈㪍 㪈㪍 㪉㪇㩼
㪊㪏
㪊㪇
㪊㪍 㪊㪐
㪊㪌
㪊㪐 㪊㪏
㪉㪈 㪉㪍 㪉㪏
㪊㪎 㪊㪍 㪋㪇㩼
㪊㪋
㪊㪇 㪊㪉 㪍㪇㩼
㪏㪇㩼
㪍 㪈㪈 㪊
㪉㪅㪉 㪕 㪁 㪁 㪁 㪉㪅㪌
㪈㪎
㪌
㪉㪅㪌 㪕 㪁 㪁 㪁 㪉㪅㪐
㪍 㪎
㪊㪅㪇 㪊㪅㪈
㪏 㪈㪈
㪊㪅㪈 㪕 㪁 㪁 㪊㪅㪊
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪉㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫅㫆㪀 㪋㩷㩿㪣㪼㪸㫅㩷㫐㪼㫊㪀 㪠㩾㪻㩷㪸㪾㫉㪼㪼㩷㪻㪼㫇㪼㫅㪻㫀㫅㪾㩷㫆㫅㩷㪺㫆㫅㪻㫀㫋㫀㫆㫅㫊㪅
䊶For questions on CCS (5 level scale) and 4 types of CCS, N=306䋨those who were provided with newspaper article䋩䋬N=1316 those who were provided with information from IPCC special report on CCS) For questions on CCS(2 level scale)䋬N=251䋨news paper䋩䋬N=1042(IPCC) 䊶***:P<1%, **:P<5%, *:P<10% (difference in mean)
㩷
Using the results of the exploratory factor analysis, we conducted a path analysis (i.e., structural equation modeling, SEM) to obtain a statistical acceptable structural model based on the presumed relationship between respondents’ views on CCS and global warming (observed variables), the latent four influential factors, and the level of acceptability of CCS
Effectiveness of CCS
0.11** - 0.05*
Note)The numbers attached to paths indicate standardized path coefficients. ***: P<0.01, **: P<0.05, *: P<0.1
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪠㪧㪚㪚
㪦㫍㪼㫉㪸㫃㫃㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩿㪉㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
㪉㪌
Risk and leakage
Responsibility error
㪥㪼㫎㫊㫇㪸㫇㪼㫉 㪊 㪈㪉 㪠㪧㪚㪚 㪈 㪈㪈
Figure 6.㩷 Difference of opinion among respondents who received IPCC information or newspaper information on CCS, 07 survey (Internet, whole sample: after providing information understanding of effectiveness of CCS as a mitigation option for climate change) Factor 3: responsibility (respondent awareness of societal responsibility for mitigation of CO2) Factor 4: fossil fuel use (respondent concern that CCS would allow continuation of current usage levels of fossil fuels)
Risk and leakage
0.12***
error
㪦㫍㪼㫉㪸㫃㫃㩷㪚㪚㪪 㩿㪌㩷㫊㪺㪸㫃㪼㫊㪀
Use of fossil fuel
㩷
4810
8
K. Itaoka et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4803–4810 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
(observed variables). We also assumed two latent variables (“General acceptance (CCS general)” and “Implementation (Geological storage)”) between four factors and acceptance of CCS or geological storage (four observed variables) as constructs for understanding the acceptability of CCS or implementation of each type of geological storage in this model. Figure 7, illustrates the relationship between the four factors, and the two latent variables (“General acceptance (CCS general).” Implementation (Geological storage),” also was incorporated into the e path analysis. According to the size of the standardized path coefficients, the “Effectiveness of CCS” factor consistently influences both the “General acceptance (CCS general)” and “Implementation (Geological storage).” Meanwhile, the negative influence of “Risks and leakage” on “Implementation (Geological storage)” is much larger than that on “General acceptance (CCS general)” as the path coefficient to “Implementation (Geological storage)” (-0.40) is twice as large as that on “General acceptance (CCS general)” (-0.21). On the contrary, the negative influence of the “Fossil fuel use” on the “General acceptance (CCS general)” is about two times as large as that on “Implementation (Geological storage),” as the path coefficients, (-0.15) and (-005) indicate. In summary, understanding the effectiveness of CCS would be a key factor of positively influencing the public in both general CCS acceptance and geologic implementation. The factor for concern about the risks and leakage of CCS would mainly negatively influence public opinion regarding the implementation (Geological storage). Similarly, the factor for concern that CCS would allow continuation of current usage levels of fossil fuels would mainly negatively influence general CCS acceptance of CCS..
5. Conclusion The Japanese public surveys regarding recognition status and opinions of CCS were conducted, and the following results were obtained. First, not many people still know about CCS. And second, those who have knowledge on CCS show a preference for CCS implementation; however; preference was decreased after obtaining information which we considered was neutral on CCS. These results suggest a possibility that information on negative aspects of CCS (risks, etc.) may not be well known in the general public. We also found that after providing different information on CCS to respondents, in the group with the newspaper articles which we considered neutral, preference on CCS was slightly lower in comparison with other groups that received information from the IPCC Special Report. The newspaper articles contained the information on negative opinions against CCS that went beyond the information of risks provided in the PCC Special Report. It is assumed that such negative opinions may have influenced opinion formation of respondents. Since CCS is a new technology, information about how other people or entities evaluate CCS is a major influence. The views of those assigned to the sub-sample provided with industrial and natural analogue of preference on geological storage was slightly higher in comparison with other groups. This implies information on natural or industrial analogue would help communicate information on risk to the public in a positive way. As the result of path analysis to data of a public survey, assuming four factors -- (1) risks and leakage, (2) effectiveness of CCS, (3) responsibility, and (4) fossil fuel use -- we found that the factor of understanding the effectiveness of CCS is the most positively influential for general acceptance of CCS and implementation of geological storage. The factor of risks and leakage became much more influential negatively in the implementation of geological storage compared to general acceptance of CCS. This implies implementation of CC2 geological storage needs careful communication of risk. Reference 1) Itaoka K, Saito A, Akai M. Public Acceptance of CO2 Capture and Storage Technology: A Survey of Public Opinion to Explore Influential Factors. In: Rubin ES, Keith DW, Gilboy CF, editors. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations, Cheltenham, UK: IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme; 2004. 2) Itaoka K, Saito A, Akai M. A path analysis for public survey data on social acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technology Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cheltenham, UK: IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme; 2006. 3) IPCC; IPCC Special Report. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary for Policy makers and Technical Summary; 2005.