- Email: [email protected]
Keeping CCS stakeholder involvement in perspective
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia
Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794 EnergyEnergy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/XXX
GHGT-9
Keeping CCS Stakeholder Involvement in Perspective Elizabeth L. Malone1* Judith A. Bradbury1 James J. Dooley1 a
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 8400 Baltimore Ave, Suite 201, College Park, MD 20740, USA b Energy and Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 Elsevier use only: Received date here; revised date here; accepted date here
Abstract
Recent surveys, polls, and other research focused on stakeholder attitudes towards the nascent commercial deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies revealed that the general public knows relatively little about CCS. Given this lack of knowledge with respect to the concept of CCS—let alone first-hand experiential knowledge derived from seeing these technologies deployed in local communities—it is imperative to re-examine how research on CCS stakeholder involvement is conducted and how the results of these studies are reported. This paper will explore several such framing issues regarding future stakeholder involvement activities. 2008Elsevier ElsevierLtd. Ltd.All Allrights rightsreserved. reserved c© 2009
Keywords: Stakeholder involvement; carbon capture and storage; CCS; surveys
1. Introduction Recent surveys and other research into stakeholder involvement focused on the nascent commercial deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies have provided valuable information about the state of general knowledge and attitudes toward these technologies [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. This research joins a line of studies that seek to determine people’s views on climate change generally [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. Most importantly, these research efforts reveal that the general public has relatively little knowledge about CCS (and increasing but still little knowledge about climate change). Given this lack of knowledge with respect to the concept of CCS—let alone first-hand experiential knowledge derived from seeing these technologies deployed in local communities—this paper critiques the methodology and results of the survey research and how the results were used in framing CCS stakeholder involvement. The paper then explores several framing issues regarding the goals and approaches of future stakeholder-involvement activities.
2. Review of key issues related to CCS public acceptance literature and methodologies Most stakeholder interviews or surveys about CCS have had to contend with a profound lack of knowledge about the technology, climate change, or both. Curry and Herzog [16] found that fewer than 5 percent of respondents had heard of CCS. In their update of this research, Curry et al. [6] report that 5 percent of respondents in 2006 had heard of CCS. Itaoka et al.’s [2] pretests and focus groups revealed that few people had heard of CCS, so they provided two sets of information to respondents (no fewer than 68.8 percent of respondents chose the answer, “I don’t know it at all.”) Miller et al. [7] report that fewer than 18 percent of Australians had ever heard of CCS. Shackley et al. [4] report that “[n]one of the respondents were [sic] familiar with CO2 Capture and Storage prior to the interview.” The research was conducted with a convenience sample of passengers at
* Corresponding author. Tel. +1-301-314-6755 Fax: +1-301-314-6760. [email protected].
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.305
2
4790
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
E.L. Malone et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794
Liverpool John Lennon International Airport in 2004. De Coninck and Huijts [3] report that public knowledge of CCS in the Netherlands “was very low,” based on a survey of 112 inhabitants of the town of Alkmarr. For surveys, lack of knowledge is particularly problematic. The almost total lack of knowledge is a formidable barrier to conducting a valid survey of opinions. The goal for surveys and polls is to gauge people’s opinions, implying enough knowledge to have formed an opinion. Although it is certainly good practice to ask questions that measure knowledge, such questions are typically used to explain behaviour or achievement or to design and implement information programs. Alternatively—relevant to surveys on CCS—knowledge-based questions are used to measure the worth of other answers; Bradburn et al. [17] state, “[b]efore asking attitude questions about issues or persons, ask knowledge questions to screen out respondents who lack sufficient information or to classify respondents by level of knowledge” (see also Robinson and Meadow [18] on filtering with “don’t know” options). In other words, the opinions of respondents who know little or nothing about an issue are of little use to the researchers or the larger community. Such opinions are called “pseudo opinions” or “non-attitudes” [5]. Furthermore, because of the inherent difficulty of providing information in an unbiased way, surveys may be compromised at the outset if they seek to educate. Even where there is no deliberate attempt to bias the responses, choices in wording communicate meanings that influence results; Bradburn and Sudman [19] recommend, “[g]iven the evidence that a little information can be misleading, attempts to instantly ‘inform’ respondents with short descriptions of the situation should only be done with extreme care. Rather, respondents who have not thought about the issue should be encouraged to give ‘Don’t know’ or ‘No opinion’ responses.” An important development is evidenced in the work of de Best Waldhober and Daamen [5]. These researchers tried to at least partially overcome the problem of provision of information by using a technique called the Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ). Respondents were presented with tested and revised information about global warming and six CCS options. Many of the issues discussed above were at least partially addressed. For instance, an English translation of one part says, “[i]n the transportation of CO2 through pipelines, leakages can occur, releasing CO2 into the air. The chance of this happening is very small and is comparable to the present chance of leakage in underground pipelines in the Netherlands” [5]. Having first-hand, experiential knowledge with CCS in local communities would provide a sound empirical basis for forming an opinion. However, such experience is extremely limited. Presently, there are three commercial end-to-end CCS facilities in the world, as outlined below. • The Sliepner project sits 230 km off the coast of Norway in the North Sea. • The In Salah project sits within the Sahara Desert in Algeria near a town with a population of approximately 28,000, surrounded by an area with a population density of 0.6 inhabitants per km2. • The Weyburn CO2-driven enhanced oil recovery (EOR) project in Saskatchewan is near a small town of approximately 9400 people in a region of Canada that is sparsely populated (the population density for Saskatchewan is 1.6 inhabitants per km2). Although living next to a power plant (e.g., a nuclear plant or a coal-fired plant that uses CCS technology) is not necessary to form an opinion about the technologies involved, living near, observing and hopefully deriving some benefit from large infrastructures like power plants does allow people to respond to a survey or a poll, drawing upon their own experiences. Lacking this personal experience, respondents are much more likely to be influenced in their responses by the design and implementation of the survey instrument being used to solicit their opinions about CCS. Perhaps more fundamentally, however, it is difficult for respondents to imagine themselves in the future. Is it realistic at this stage of CCS development to expect them to extrapolate from a world in which climate change is not being addressed to a future characterized by decades of experience with binding and progressively tighter emissions constraints? Finally, surveys and polls measure public opinion at one point in time. Opinions are dynamic. A key issue is the relationship between opinion and action: stated preferences do not necessarily equate with subsequent outcomes. How strongly do respondents hold their opinions? What other factors should be considered in assessing whether these opinions will be mobilized and effectively abort CCS implementation?
2.1. Placing CCS and Climate Change in a Broader Social Context Many studies of public attitudes towards CCS try to place CCS and climate mitigation in a broader societal context. Most frequently, in this line of research, respondents are asked to rate climate change mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions) to other societal goals. For example, 4 of the 15 social and economic issues presented to respondents by Palmgren et al. [1] were “improving education, improving health care, improving homeland security, reducing crime” Similarly, Curry et al. [6] asked respondents to choose the top three “most important problems facing the U.S.,” and offered choices that included “terrorism, Iraq war, crime, [and] poverty” as well as “environment.” Curry et al. [6] report that protecting the environment was the eleventh highest ranked priority for Americans, while Palmgren et al.’s [1] respondents ranked “reducing climate change” as the lowest social priority of the 15 choices provided them. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that 14 percent of U.S. households had been the victim of a violent or property crime that year [20]. Is it much of a surprise that protecting the
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
E.L. Malone et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794
3
4791
climate might rank lower than reducing crime? Despite the U.S. Government’s assertion that it was “very likely” that climatic changes consistent with global warming were already happening[21], most of the public will likely not understand their direct experience of negative consequences associated with climate change in the same way that they understand their experience of crime. Also, if the context of climate change as a relatively low priority is established early in these surveys about CCS—a technology that can only be used to reduce GHG emissions—that context also impacts the respondents’ perceptions about CCS. More broadly, however, sociocultural theorists point to the social processes within which opinions about a particular issue are formed. People bring to their evaluation of that issue their cultural frame of reference—their values, social interactions and differing experiences, and their way of interpreting and responding to the world. Rather than beginning with the technology and the attributes of that technology, this school of thought would examine first the human value system and how that impacts the proposed technology. As Bradbury et al. [22] concluded in their study of community perspectives on the risks of incineration and other technologies for disposing of the nation’s stockpile of chemical weapons, residents did not think about technology or risk in isolation from their broader life experiences. The community conflicts identified in the studies were not only about the technical risk of the proposed technology, but also about a number of broader issues that have been hidden by the nearly exclusive focus on technological attributes. More important, for example, were factors such as the fairness and openness of the decision-making process, previous experiences and relationships with the project developers and governmental institutions, and accountability (who will take care of our community if something goes wrong?). Significantly, Bradbury [22] is finding, in her work with one of the US Department of Energy (DOE) regional carbon sequestration partnerships, that critical factors in acceptance of a research project in a community include previous experiences with the perceived failure of the established regulatory processes to ensure public safety; existing relationships with host sites; and the overall perceived benefit of the project to their community and way of life. That is, the technology itself (CCS) or the technology in the abstract or in isolation is not necessarily the critical factor for stakeholders. 2.2. Methodological concerns An additional issue is that many surveys about CCS violate scientific standards in sampling methodology, testing, and wording of questions, etc. [23]. Most of the studies seeking opinions about CCS use a convenience sample, violating basic survey methodology. Moreover, the framing of why CCS will be used is often improper and incomplete. The alternative to CCS use seems to be a world in which no harm is incurred, either now or in the future. Such a world does not exist, of course, and any technology represents dangers and risks. For example, providing an interviewee with information on the potential that in “high concentrations, CO2 can kill you,” as Palmgren et al. do [1], will likely color people’s responses to all subsequent questions pertaining to CCS. Similarly, respondents (especially most of them, with their very limited knowledge of CCS) will be affected by being told that CCS “is described as one of the most environmentally friendly ways to address the issue of increasing CO2 emissions, yet there is a small risk of leakage” ([7] emphasis added). However, in discussing other technologies, risks and dangers were not discussed. Again, the issue of providing balanced information on all technological options has been addressed by de Best Waldhober and Daamen [5]. However, this is difficult because the survey instrument cannot communicate all possible pros and cons for all potential energy sources.
2.3. Comparisons to various large scale GHG emissions options Another common theme of a number of these studies is to ask respondents to rate CCS compared to other potential methods of reducing GHGs and/or producing cleaner forms of energy [6, 24, 1, 25]. Predictably, people typically ranked technologies that they are more familiar with (such as solar power, more efficient cars, hybrid cars, and wind energy) over something that they have never heard of. The comparison reveals a preference for the known over the unknown, but probably little else.
2.4. Willingness to pay The CCS-focused surveys often seek to understand the public’s willingness to pay to address climate change and/or to address climate change via the large-scale commercial deployment of CCS. Palmgren et al. [1] report that their respondents’ willingness to pay for coal-fired CCS-derived emissions was the lowest of the nine energy configurations offered to the interviewees, each of which (the interviewees were told) would reduce electricity emissions by 50 percent. Interviewees were told that “the cost of electricity from such a [CCS] system might be about 50 [percent] higher.” It is not clear whether respondents were told if any of the other energy system configurations they were asked to rank would increase the cost of electricity. Curry et al. [6] report that from 2003 to 2006, the number of Americans willing to pay an additional monthly surcharge for their electricity bills doubled. Two issues are worth considering here. The first is the artificial construct of the public being “offered” a choice as to how much they want to pay for their electricity. To the extent that electricity is an essential service in a developed nation, people do not have choices about what they want to pay for their electricity. They either pay their bills, seek out local and national programs
4
4792
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
E.L. Malone et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794
designed to help low-income individuals pay energy, or not pay their electricity bill and run the risk of having their service terminated. If there comes a day when there is a national climate policy that significantly reduces GHG emissions to the point that the commercial deployment of CCS is called for and is economic, the price of electricity being offered to consumers at that time will reflect this decision to internalize the cost associated with uncontrolled release of GHG emissions. This will not be a choice made at the individual consumer level. Second, it is prejudicial to explicitly state that it will cost consumers to “solve global warming” (the wording used by Curry et al. [6]) absent a discussion of what the benefits are of solving global warming. Without specifying benefits, the survey is simply measuring whether people would prefer to pay more or less for a commodity, with an unsurprising result that they would prefer to pay less.
3. Utilizing findings from these studies of public attitudes with respect to CCS These methodological and framing shortcomings should temper how these studies and their results are evaluated and used to inform public policy with respect to CCS. Yet, although the methodological shortcomings of these studies are sometimes briefly acknowledged in reports and analyses written for public policy and nontechnical audiences, authors quickly move on to use the study results in ways that their shortcomings should preclude. The general point, illegitimately derived, is that public has serious misgivings about CCS; quantitative data often describing pseudo-opinions are cited as evidence of this point. • For example, a recent report from the Congressional Research Service [26] devotes one sentence to methodological issues concerning these studies, but then goes on over the course of the better part of a page to describe “evidence” of public mistrust concerning CCS. • The IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage [27] acknowledges that there are very few studies of public attitudes towards CCS, yet goes on to state that “CCS is generally regarded as less favourable than other (greenhouse gas emissions abatement) options.” 4. The need to go beyond surveys and polls in stakeholder involvement Finally, one result of quantitative surveys has been to create or reinforce the implicit idea that the goal of public involvement is to gain complete, or almost complete, agreement about the need to implement CCS, including confidence that safety and legal issues will be resolved. The discussion sections try to probe, in an advertising-like way, what characteristics of respondents could be used to “sell” the idea of CCS. However, polls and surveys are just two of many methods of involving stakeholders in the development and implementation of new technologies. In their original use—gaining information about voter preferences and behaviour—polls and surveys asked people to give opinions about issues that were aspects of campaigns, so that most of those surveyed or polled knew something about the subject matter [19]. Other methods of public involvement, such as town hall meetings, focus groups, informal conversations with civic leaders, oral and written informational materials, advisory boards and committees, typically have different goals, methods, and types of results. The citizen panels conducted by Shackley et al. [4] are an example of a technique specifically designed to provide a wide range of knowledge on global warming and CCS, including contrasting perspectives. The nine participants were able to ask questions of the experts. Thus, the framing of a stakeholder involvement program or process is essential to its success. As highlighted by the recent National Research Council report, Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making [28], public involvement generally serves three basic goals: “those focused on the quality of the environmental assessments and decisions, and those focused on the relationships among the participants” (page 9-1). Ideally, therefore, participation should (1) improve the quality of the decisions and their legitimacy among those involved and affected; (2) lead to increased understanding and decision-making capacity among agency officials, scientists and those affected; and, (3) by producing legitimate, credible and well-understood decisions, enhance the ability to implement those decisions, once made. It is worthwhile, first, to consider the specific goals of public involvement in specific places at specific times and match the method to the goals; second, to determine and accommodate various levels of knowledge held by the various stakeholders to be involved; and, third, to understand the frames of reference of those stakeholders and the decision context in which stakeholder involvement takes place. First, researchers and firms who seek to engage stakeholders must clearly identify an appropriate and attainable goal of such involvement or risk the backlash that unrealistic expectations may generate. For instance, the implicit or explicit goal of universal consensus is not realistic in most situations; it is likely impossible to gain consent from everyone. But, different contexts should guide goal-setting. Should the goal include obtaining and acting on input from the public—especially those located near a facility? Or, is a more realistic goal to ensure that adequate information is communicated to relevant and interested stakeholders and to hold dialogues about any issues that may be contentious?
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
E.L. Malone et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794
5
4793
Further, as has been the case with many of the early field tests of CCS, some communities may welcome CCS facilities, seeing the potential for job creation or other benefits associated with CCS deployment in their communities as being sufficient to accept some ambiguity about the multi-century scale retention of CO2 in the deep subsurface. Through a multi-decadal accumulation of first-hand knowledge with CCS, society at large will come to some decision about the costs and benefits associated with CCS relative to those associated with other GHG-mitigation technologies or living with more adverse climate impacts. Second, the standard scientific question, “Compared to what?” must be applied to stakeholder involvement programs. That is, the relevant alternative to a fossil fuel plant with CCS technologies could well be a fossil fuel plant without CCS technologies, not necessarily a concentrating solar power plant or wind farm. Moreover, there are risks involved with not installing CCS technologies as well as with doing so, so the set of considerations that need to be discussed with stakeholders is broader than the technical issues (often framed in terms of risks or dangers) associated with injecting carbon dioxide deep underground and keeping it there. Third, stakeholder involvement must be seen as part of a fair, open, and accountable decision process, bringing a wide variety of voices together in the dialogue. Programs that do not include the intent to listen and respond to some or all stakeholders prevent the building of relationships of trust and respect and are quickly discounted by these groups With these three framing issues carefully considered, stakeholder involvement can be an important process in the implementation of CCS technologies as well as other innovative technologies implemented to address climate change. One example of a stakeholder involvement strategy tailored to the situation can be found in the use of Deliberative Polling®, a technique that combines deliberation in small group discussions, balanced briefing materials, and scientific random sampling. It was used in Texas to consider wind and other technologies to increase energy production. The result was state support for a rapid increase in renewable energy [29]. Mainstream programs, such as ongoing focus groups and advisory boards, provide the essentials for productive stakeholder involvement: provision of information, identification of substantive issues (which may not be the same for the public, researchers, and businesses), an open decision-making process, clear accountability, and relationships of trust. These types of programs thus may facilitate identification and resolution of the non-technical, yet critical factors that, as discussed above, can affect effective CCS implementation [22]. 5. Conclusions Given the very low level of knowledge about CCS, surveys are not an appropriate research methodology; the most surveys can do at the present time is to confirm this lack of knowledge. Broader discussions with stakeholders are needed, to include climate change, energy supply, and tradeoff issues in forums where information can be provided and questions can be asked. Many established approaches are available to conduct stakeholder involvement, including ongoing focus groups, citizen panels and juries, advisory boards, and specialized techniques, such as Deliberative Polling. In designing effective stakeholder involvement, agencies and businesses must provide a context that includes a realized scenario of a world that undertakes GHG mitigation, the range of technologies with advantages and risks of both established and new technologies, and alternative options for policy. The context also must include the recognition that any course of action—or inaction—entails some risk. References 1. 2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
7.
Palmgren, Claire R., M. Granger Morgan, Wändi Briune de Briun and David W. Keith. 2004. Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environmental Science & Technology 38:24, 6441-6450. Itaoka, K., A. Saito and M. Akai. 2004. Public acceptance of CO2 Cature and storage technology: a survey of public opinion to explore influential factors. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume I: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Overviews, E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keith and C.F. Gilboy, eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam. De Coninck, H.C. and N.M.A. Huijts. 2005. Carbon dioxide capture and storage: public perception, policy and regulatory issues in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume II: Poster Papers, M Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K. Thambimuthu, eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Shackley, Simon, Carly McLachlan and Clair Gough. 2004. The Public Perception of Carbon Capture and Storage. Working paper 44, Tyndall Centre to Climate Change Research, Manchester, UK. De Best Waldhober, Marjolein and Dancker Daamen. 2006. Public Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Large Scale Implementation of Six CO2 Capture and Storage Technologies: Well-Informed and Well-Considered Opinions Versus Uninformed and Pseudo-Opinions of the Dutch Public. Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies, Leiden University, Leiden. Curry, T.E., S. Ansolabehere and H. Herzog. 2007. A Survey of Public Attitudes towards Climate Change and Climate Change Mitigation Technologies in the United States: Analyses of 2006 Results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Cambridge. http://sequestration.mit.edu/bibliography/ Publication No. LFEE 2007-01 WP Miller, E., L. Bell and L. Buys. 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.
6
4794 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
22. 23. 24.
25.
26. 27.
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
E.L. Malone et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794
Bostrom, A., M.G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff and D. Read. 1994. What do people know about climate change? Part 1: mental models. Risk Analysis 14:6, 959-70. Henderson-Sellers, A. 1990. Australian public perception of the greenhouse issue. Climatic Change 1, 69-96. Kempton, W. 1991. Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions 1:3, 183-208. Kempton, W. 1993. Will public environmental concern lead to action on global warming? Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 18, 217-45. Löfstedt, R.E. 1993. Lay perspectives concerning global climate change in Vienna, Austria. Energy and Environment 4, 140-54. Löfstedt, R.E. 1995. Why are public perception studies of the environment ignored? Global Environmental Change 5:2, 83-85. Read, D., A. Bostrom, M.G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff and T. Smuts. 1994. What do people know about climate change? Part 2: survey studies of educated lay people. Risk Analysis 14, 971-82. Whyte, A.V.T. and M.R. Harrison 1981. Public perception of weather and climate change: report on a pilot study in Ontario. Atmospheric Environment Service, Ottawa. T Curry, DM Reiner, S Ansolabehere, and H Herzog. 2005. How aware is the public of carbon capture and storage? In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume I: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Overviews, ES Rubin, DW Keith, and CF Gilboy, eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Bradburn, Norman, Seymour Sudman and Brian Wansink. 2004. Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design – for Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Robinson, John P. and Robert Meadow. 1982. Polls Apart: A Call for Consistency in Surveys of Public Opinion on World Issues. Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press. Bradburn, Norman and Seymour Sudman. 1988. Polls and Surveys: Understanding What They Tell Us. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. P Klaus. 2007. “National Crime Victimization Survey Crime and the Nation’s Households: 2005.” Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnh05.pdf April 2007, NCJ Report Number 217198 CCSP [U.S. Climate Change Science Program]. 2008. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. P. Backlund, A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, R.C. Izaurralde, B.A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, M.G. Ryan, S.R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. Lettenmaier, D. Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B.P. Kelly, L. Meyerson, B. Peterson, R. Shaw. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Bradbury, J.A., K.M. Branch, J.H. Heerwagen and E.B. Liebow. 1994. Community Viewpoints of the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. Summary report and eight community reports prepared for the U.S. Army and Science Applications International Corporation American Association for Public Opinion Research 2008. Best Practices for Survey and Public Opinion Research http://www.aapor.org/bestpractices (accessed July 30, 2008). D. M. Reiner, T. E. Curry, M. A. de Figueiredo, H. J. Herzog, S. D. Ansolabehere, K. Itaoka, F. Johnsson, and M. Odenberger 2006. “American Exceptionalism? Similarities and Differences in National Attitudes Toward Energy Policy and Global Warming..” Environ. Sci. Technol., 40 (7), 2093 -2098, 2006. 10.1021/es052010b S0013-936X(05)02010-9 Simon Shackley, Carly McLachlan and Clair Gough. 2005. Chapter 6: The Public Perception of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UK: Results from Focus Groups and a Survey.” An Integrated Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UK. Edited by: Clair Gough and Simon Shackley. The Tyndall Center. Technical Report 47. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme2/final_reports/t2_21.pdf Congressional Research Service. 2008. Community Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Infrastructure: Siting Challenges. CRS Report RL34601. July 29, 2008. IPCC, 2005: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp. 28. Dietz, Thomas and Paul Stern (eds). 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. National Research Council. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. 29. Lehr, R.L., W. Guild, D.L. Thomas and B.G. Swezey. 2003. Listening to Customers: How Deliberative Polling Helped Build 1,000 MW of New Renewable Energy Projects in Texas. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO
http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/energy/2003/renewable_energy.pdf
Energy Procedia
Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794 EnergyEnergy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/XXX
GHGT-9
Keeping CCS Stakeholder Involvement in Perspective Elizabeth L. Malone1* Judith A. Bradbury1 James J. Dooley1 a
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 8400 Baltimore Ave, Suite 201, College Park, MD 20740, USA b Energy and Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 Elsevier use only: Received date here; revised date here; accepted date here
Abstract
Recent surveys, polls, and other research focused on stakeholder attitudes towards the nascent commercial deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies revealed that the general public knows relatively little about CCS. Given this lack of knowledge with respect to the concept of CCS—let alone first-hand experiential knowledge derived from seeing these technologies deployed in local communities—it is imperative to re-examine how research on CCS stakeholder involvement is conducted and how the results of these studies are reported. This paper will explore several such framing issues regarding future stakeholder involvement activities. 2008Elsevier ElsevierLtd. Ltd.All Allrights rightsreserved. reserved c© 2009
Keywords: Stakeholder involvement; carbon capture and storage; CCS; surveys
1. Introduction Recent surveys and other research into stakeholder involvement focused on the nascent commercial deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies have provided valuable information about the state of general knowledge and attitudes toward these technologies [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. This research joins a line of studies that seek to determine people’s views on climate change generally [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. Most importantly, these research efforts reveal that the general public has relatively little knowledge about CCS (and increasing but still little knowledge about climate change). Given this lack of knowledge with respect to the concept of CCS—let alone first-hand experiential knowledge derived from seeing these technologies deployed in local communities—this paper critiques the methodology and results of the survey research and how the results were used in framing CCS stakeholder involvement. The paper then explores several framing issues regarding the goals and approaches of future stakeholder-involvement activities.
2. Review of key issues related to CCS public acceptance literature and methodologies Most stakeholder interviews or surveys about CCS have had to contend with a profound lack of knowledge about the technology, climate change, or both. Curry and Herzog [16] found that fewer than 5 percent of respondents had heard of CCS. In their update of this research, Curry et al. [6] report that 5 percent of respondents in 2006 had heard of CCS. Itaoka et al.’s [2] pretests and focus groups revealed that few people had heard of CCS, so they provided two sets of information to respondents (no fewer than 68.8 percent of respondents chose the answer, “I don’t know it at all.”) Miller et al. [7] report that fewer than 18 percent of Australians had ever heard of CCS. Shackley et al. [4] report that “[n]one of the respondents were [sic] familiar with CO2 Capture and Storage prior to the interview.” The research was conducted with a convenience sample of passengers at
* Corresponding author. Tel. +1-301-314-6755 Fax: +1-301-314-6760. [email protected].
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.305
2
4790
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
E.L. Malone et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794
Liverpool John Lennon International Airport in 2004. De Coninck and Huijts [3] report that public knowledge of CCS in the Netherlands “was very low,” based on a survey of 112 inhabitants of the town of Alkmarr. For surveys, lack of knowledge is particularly problematic. The almost total lack of knowledge is a formidable barrier to conducting a valid survey of opinions. The goal for surveys and polls is to gauge people’s opinions, implying enough knowledge to have formed an opinion. Although it is certainly good practice to ask questions that measure knowledge, such questions are typically used to explain behaviour or achievement or to design and implement information programs. Alternatively—relevant to surveys on CCS—knowledge-based questions are used to measure the worth of other answers; Bradburn et al. [17] state, “[b]efore asking attitude questions about issues or persons, ask knowledge questions to screen out respondents who lack sufficient information or to classify respondents by level of knowledge” (see also Robinson and Meadow [18] on filtering with “don’t know” options). In other words, the opinions of respondents who know little or nothing about an issue are of little use to the researchers or the larger community. Such opinions are called “pseudo opinions” or “non-attitudes” [5]. Furthermore, because of the inherent difficulty of providing information in an unbiased way, surveys may be compromised at the outset if they seek to educate. Even where there is no deliberate attempt to bias the responses, choices in wording communicate meanings that influence results; Bradburn and Sudman [19] recommend, “[g]iven the evidence that a little information can be misleading, attempts to instantly ‘inform’ respondents with short descriptions of the situation should only be done with extreme care. Rather, respondents who have not thought about the issue should be encouraged to give ‘Don’t know’ or ‘No opinion’ responses.” An important development is evidenced in the work of de Best Waldhober and Daamen [5]. These researchers tried to at least partially overcome the problem of provision of information by using a technique called the Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ). Respondents were presented with tested and revised information about global warming and six CCS options. Many of the issues discussed above were at least partially addressed. For instance, an English translation of one part says, “[i]n the transportation of CO2 through pipelines, leakages can occur, releasing CO2 into the air. The chance of this happening is very small and is comparable to the present chance of leakage in underground pipelines in the Netherlands” [5]. Having first-hand, experiential knowledge with CCS in local communities would provide a sound empirical basis for forming an opinion. However, such experience is extremely limited. Presently, there are three commercial end-to-end CCS facilities in the world, as outlined below. • The Sliepner project sits 230 km off the coast of Norway in the North Sea. • The In Salah project sits within the Sahara Desert in Algeria near a town with a population of approximately 28,000, surrounded by an area with a population density of 0.6 inhabitants per km2. • The Weyburn CO2-driven enhanced oil recovery (EOR) project in Saskatchewan is near a small town of approximately 9400 people in a region of Canada that is sparsely populated (the population density for Saskatchewan is 1.6 inhabitants per km2). Although living next to a power plant (e.g., a nuclear plant or a coal-fired plant that uses CCS technology) is not necessary to form an opinion about the technologies involved, living near, observing and hopefully deriving some benefit from large infrastructures like power plants does allow people to respond to a survey or a poll, drawing upon their own experiences. Lacking this personal experience, respondents are much more likely to be influenced in their responses by the design and implementation of the survey instrument being used to solicit their opinions about CCS. Perhaps more fundamentally, however, it is difficult for respondents to imagine themselves in the future. Is it realistic at this stage of CCS development to expect them to extrapolate from a world in which climate change is not being addressed to a future characterized by decades of experience with binding and progressively tighter emissions constraints? Finally, surveys and polls measure public opinion at one point in time. Opinions are dynamic. A key issue is the relationship between opinion and action: stated preferences do not necessarily equate with subsequent outcomes. How strongly do respondents hold their opinions? What other factors should be considered in assessing whether these opinions will be mobilized and effectively abort CCS implementation?
2.1. Placing CCS and Climate Change in a Broader Social Context Many studies of public attitudes towards CCS try to place CCS and climate mitigation in a broader societal context. Most frequently, in this line of research, respondents are asked to rate climate change mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions) to other societal goals. For example, 4 of the 15 social and economic issues presented to respondents by Palmgren et al. [1] were “improving education, improving health care, improving homeland security, reducing crime” Similarly, Curry et al. [6] asked respondents to choose the top three “most important problems facing the U.S.,” and offered choices that included “terrorism, Iraq war, crime, [and] poverty” as well as “environment.” Curry et al. [6] report that protecting the environment was the eleventh highest ranked priority for Americans, while Palmgren et al.’s [1] respondents ranked “reducing climate change” as the lowest social priority of the 15 choices provided them. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that 14 percent of U.S. households had been the victim of a violent or property crime that year [20]. Is it much of a surprise that protecting the
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
E.L. Malone et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794
3
4791
climate might rank lower than reducing crime? Despite the U.S. Government’s assertion that it was “very likely” that climatic changes consistent with global warming were already happening[21], most of the public will likely not understand their direct experience of negative consequences associated with climate change in the same way that they understand their experience of crime. Also, if the context of climate change as a relatively low priority is established early in these surveys about CCS—a technology that can only be used to reduce GHG emissions—that context also impacts the respondents’ perceptions about CCS. More broadly, however, sociocultural theorists point to the social processes within which opinions about a particular issue are formed. People bring to their evaluation of that issue their cultural frame of reference—their values, social interactions and differing experiences, and their way of interpreting and responding to the world. Rather than beginning with the technology and the attributes of that technology, this school of thought would examine first the human value system and how that impacts the proposed technology. As Bradbury et al. [22] concluded in their study of community perspectives on the risks of incineration and other technologies for disposing of the nation’s stockpile of chemical weapons, residents did not think about technology or risk in isolation from their broader life experiences. The community conflicts identified in the studies were not only about the technical risk of the proposed technology, but also about a number of broader issues that have been hidden by the nearly exclusive focus on technological attributes. More important, for example, were factors such as the fairness and openness of the decision-making process, previous experiences and relationships with the project developers and governmental institutions, and accountability (who will take care of our community if something goes wrong?). Significantly, Bradbury [22] is finding, in her work with one of the US Department of Energy (DOE) regional carbon sequestration partnerships, that critical factors in acceptance of a research project in a community include previous experiences with the perceived failure of the established regulatory processes to ensure public safety; existing relationships with host sites; and the overall perceived benefit of the project to their community and way of life. That is, the technology itself (CCS) or the technology in the abstract or in isolation is not necessarily the critical factor for stakeholders. 2.2. Methodological concerns An additional issue is that many surveys about CCS violate scientific standards in sampling methodology, testing, and wording of questions, etc. [23]. Most of the studies seeking opinions about CCS use a convenience sample, violating basic survey methodology. Moreover, the framing of why CCS will be used is often improper and incomplete. The alternative to CCS use seems to be a world in which no harm is incurred, either now or in the future. Such a world does not exist, of course, and any technology represents dangers and risks. For example, providing an interviewee with information on the potential that in “high concentrations, CO2 can kill you,” as Palmgren et al. do [1], will likely color people’s responses to all subsequent questions pertaining to CCS. Similarly, respondents (especially most of them, with their very limited knowledge of CCS) will be affected by being told that CCS “is described as one of the most environmentally friendly ways to address the issue of increasing CO2 emissions, yet there is a small risk of leakage” ([7] emphasis added). However, in discussing other technologies, risks and dangers were not discussed. Again, the issue of providing balanced information on all technological options has been addressed by de Best Waldhober and Daamen [5]. However, this is difficult because the survey instrument cannot communicate all possible pros and cons for all potential energy sources.
2.3. Comparisons to various large scale GHG emissions options Another common theme of a number of these studies is to ask respondents to rate CCS compared to other potential methods of reducing GHGs and/or producing cleaner forms of energy [6, 24, 1, 25]. Predictably, people typically ranked technologies that they are more familiar with (such as solar power, more efficient cars, hybrid cars, and wind energy) over something that they have never heard of. The comparison reveals a preference for the known over the unknown, but probably little else.
2.4. Willingness to pay The CCS-focused surveys often seek to understand the public’s willingness to pay to address climate change and/or to address climate change via the large-scale commercial deployment of CCS. Palmgren et al. [1] report that their respondents’ willingness to pay for coal-fired CCS-derived emissions was the lowest of the nine energy configurations offered to the interviewees, each of which (the interviewees were told) would reduce electricity emissions by 50 percent. Interviewees were told that “the cost of electricity from such a [CCS] system might be about 50 [percent] higher.” It is not clear whether respondents were told if any of the other energy system configurations they were asked to rank would increase the cost of electricity. Curry et al. [6] report that from 2003 to 2006, the number of Americans willing to pay an additional monthly surcharge for their electricity bills doubled. Two issues are worth considering here. The first is the artificial construct of the public being “offered” a choice as to how much they want to pay for their electricity. To the extent that electricity is an essential service in a developed nation, people do not have choices about what they want to pay for their electricity. They either pay their bills, seek out local and national programs
4
4792
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
E.L. Malone et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794
designed to help low-income individuals pay energy, or not pay their electricity bill and run the risk of having their service terminated. If there comes a day when there is a national climate policy that significantly reduces GHG emissions to the point that the commercial deployment of CCS is called for and is economic, the price of electricity being offered to consumers at that time will reflect this decision to internalize the cost associated with uncontrolled release of GHG emissions. This will not be a choice made at the individual consumer level. Second, it is prejudicial to explicitly state that it will cost consumers to “solve global warming” (the wording used by Curry et al. [6]) absent a discussion of what the benefits are of solving global warming. Without specifying benefits, the survey is simply measuring whether people would prefer to pay more or less for a commodity, with an unsurprising result that they would prefer to pay less.
3. Utilizing findings from these studies of public attitudes with respect to CCS These methodological and framing shortcomings should temper how these studies and their results are evaluated and used to inform public policy with respect to CCS. Yet, although the methodological shortcomings of these studies are sometimes briefly acknowledged in reports and analyses written for public policy and nontechnical audiences, authors quickly move on to use the study results in ways that their shortcomings should preclude. The general point, illegitimately derived, is that public has serious misgivings about CCS; quantitative data often describing pseudo-opinions are cited as evidence of this point. • For example, a recent report from the Congressional Research Service [26] devotes one sentence to methodological issues concerning these studies, but then goes on over the course of the better part of a page to describe “evidence” of public mistrust concerning CCS. • The IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage [27] acknowledges that there are very few studies of public attitudes towards CCS, yet goes on to state that “CCS is generally regarded as less favourable than other (greenhouse gas emissions abatement) options.” 4. The need to go beyond surveys and polls in stakeholder involvement Finally, one result of quantitative surveys has been to create or reinforce the implicit idea that the goal of public involvement is to gain complete, or almost complete, agreement about the need to implement CCS, including confidence that safety and legal issues will be resolved. The discussion sections try to probe, in an advertising-like way, what characteristics of respondents could be used to “sell” the idea of CCS. However, polls and surveys are just two of many methods of involving stakeholders in the development and implementation of new technologies. In their original use—gaining information about voter preferences and behaviour—polls and surveys asked people to give opinions about issues that were aspects of campaigns, so that most of those surveyed or polled knew something about the subject matter [19]. Other methods of public involvement, such as town hall meetings, focus groups, informal conversations with civic leaders, oral and written informational materials, advisory boards and committees, typically have different goals, methods, and types of results. The citizen panels conducted by Shackley et al. [4] are an example of a technique specifically designed to provide a wide range of knowledge on global warming and CCS, including contrasting perspectives. The nine participants were able to ask questions of the experts. Thus, the framing of a stakeholder involvement program or process is essential to its success. As highlighted by the recent National Research Council report, Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making [28], public involvement generally serves three basic goals: “those focused on the quality of the environmental assessments and decisions, and those focused on the relationships among the participants” (page 9-1). Ideally, therefore, participation should (1) improve the quality of the decisions and their legitimacy among those involved and affected; (2) lead to increased understanding and decision-making capacity among agency officials, scientists and those affected; and, (3) by producing legitimate, credible and well-understood decisions, enhance the ability to implement those decisions, once made. It is worthwhile, first, to consider the specific goals of public involvement in specific places at specific times and match the method to the goals; second, to determine and accommodate various levels of knowledge held by the various stakeholders to be involved; and, third, to understand the frames of reference of those stakeholders and the decision context in which stakeholder involvement takes place. First, researchers and firms who seek to engage stakeholders must clearly identify an appropriate and attainable goal of such involvement or risk the backlash that unrealistic expectations may generate. For instance, the implicit or explicit goal of universal consensus is not realistic in most situations; it is likely impossible to gain consent from everyone. But, different contexts should guide goal-setting. Should the goal include obtaining and acting on input from the public—especially those located near a facility? Or, is a more realistic goal to ensure that adequate information is communicated to relevant and interested stakeholders and to hold dialogues about any issues that may be contentious?
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
E.L. Malone et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794
5
4793
Further, as has been the case with many of the early field tests of CCS, some communities may welcome CCS facilities, seeing the potential for job creation or other benefits associated with CCS deployment in their communities as being sufficient to accept some ambiguity about the multi-century scale retention of CO2 in the deep subsurface. Through a multi-decadal accumulation of first-hand knowledge with CCS, society at large will come to some decision about the costs and benefits associated with CCS relative to those associated with other GHG-mitigation technologies or living with more adverse climate impacts. Second, the standard scientific question, “Compared to what?” must be applied to stakeholder involvement programs. That is, the relevant alternative to a fossil fuel plant with CCS technologies could well be a fossil fuel plant without CCS technologies, not necessarily a concentrating solar power plant or wind farm. Moreover, there are risks involved with not installing CCS technologies as well as with doing so, so the set of considerations that need to be discussed with stakeholders is broader than the technical issues (often framed in terms of risks or dangers) associated with injecting carbon dioxide deep underground and keeping it there. Third, stakeholder involvement must be seen as part of a fair, open, and accountable decision process, bringing a wide variety of voices together in the dialogue. Programs that do not include the intent to listen and respond to some or all stakeholders prevent the building of relationships of trust and respect and are quickly discounted by these groups With these three framing issues carefully considered, stakeholder involvement can be an important process in the implementation of CCS technologies as well as other innovative technologies implemented to address climate change. One example of a stakeholder involvement strategy tailored to the situation can be found in the use of Deliberative Polling®, a technique that combines deliberation in small group discussions, balanced briefing materials, and scientific random sampling. It was used in Texas to consider wind and other technologies to increase energy production. The result was state support for a rapid increase in renewable energy [29]. Mainstream programs, such as ongoing focus groups and advisory boards, provide the essentials for productive stakeholder involvement: provision of information, identification of substantive issues (which may not be the same for the public, researchers, and businesses), an open decision-making process, clear accountability, and relationships of trust. These types of programs thus may facilitate identification and resolution of the non-technical, yet critical factors that, as discussed above, can affect effective CCS implementation [22]. 5. Conclusions Given the very low level of knowledge about CCS, surveys are not an appropriate research methodology; the most surveys can do at the present time is to confirm this lack of knowledge. Broader discussions with stakeholders are needed, to include climate change, energy supply, and tradeoff issues in forums where information can be provided and questions can be asked. Many established approaches are available to conduct stakeholder involvement, including ongoing focus groups, citizen panels and juries, advisory boards, and specialized techniques, such as Deliberative Polling. In designing effective stakeholder involvement, agencies and businesses must provide a context that includes a realized scenario of a world that undertakes GHG mitigation, the range of technologies with advantages and risks of both established and new technologies, and alternative options for policy. The context also must include the recognition that any course of action—or inaction—entails some risk. References 1. 2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
7.
Palmgren, Claire R., M. Granger Morgan, Wändi Briune de Briun and David W. Keith. 2004. Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environmental Science & Technology 38:24, 6441-6450. Itaoka, K., A. Saito and M. Akai. 2004. Public acceptance of CO2 Cature and storage technology: a survey of public opinion to explore influential factors. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume I: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Overviews, E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keith and C.F. Gilboy, eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam. De Coninck, H.C. and N.M.A. Huijts. 2005. Carbon dioxide capture and storage: public perception, policy and regulatory issues in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume II: Poster Papers, M Wilson, T. Morris, J. Gale and K. Thambimuthu, eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Shackley, Simon, Carly McLachlan and Clair Gough. 2004. The Public Perception of Carbon Capture and Storage. Working paper 44, Tyndall Centre to Climate Change Research, Manchester, UK. De Best Waldhober, Marjolein and Dancker Daamen. 2006. Public Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Large Scale Implementation of Six CO2 Capture and Storage Technologies: Well-Informed and Well-Considered Opinions Versus Uninformed and Pseudo-Opinions of the Dutch Public. Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies, Leiden University, Leiden. Curry, T.E., S. Ansolabehere and H. Herzog. 2007. A Survey of Public Attitudes towards Climate Change and Climate Change Mitigation Technologies in the United States: Analyses of 2006 Results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Cambridge. http://sequestration.mit.edu/bibliography/ Publication No. LFEE 2007-01 WP Miller, E., L. Bell and L. Buys. 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.
6
4794 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
22. 23. 24.
25.
26. 27.
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
E.L. Malone et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4789–4794
Bostrom, A., M.G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff and D. Read. 1994. What do people know about climate change? Part 1: mental models. Risk Analysis 14:6, 959-70. Henderson-Sellers, A. 1990. Australian public perception of the greenhouse issue. Climatic Change 1, 69-96. Kempton, W. 1991. Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions 1:3, 183-208. Kempton, W. 1993. Will public environmental concern lead to action on global warming? Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 18, 217-45. Löfstedt, R.E. 1993. Lay perspectives concerning global climate change in Vienna, Austria. Energy and Environment 4, 140-54. Löfstedt, R.E. 1995. Why are public perception studies of the environment ignored? Global Environmental Change 5:2, 83-85. Read, D., A. Bostrom, M.G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff and T. Smuts. 1994. What do people know about climate change? Part 2: survey studies of educated lay people. Risk Analysis 14, 971-82. Whyte, A.V.T. and M.R. Harrison 1981. Public perception of weather and climate change: report on a pilot study in Ontario. Atmospheric Environment Service, Ottawa. T Curry, DM Reiner, S Ansolabehere, and H Herzog. 2005. How aware is the public of carbon capture and storage? In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume I: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Overviews, ES Rubin, DW Keith, and CF Gilboy, eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Bradburn, Norman, Seymour Sudman and Brian Wansink. 2004. Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design – for Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Robinson, John P. and Robert Meadow. 1982. Polls Apart: A Call for Consistency in Surveys of Public Opinion on World Issues. Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press. Bradburn, Norman and Seymour Sudman. 1988. Polls and Surveys: Understanding What They Tell Us. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. P Klaus. 2007. “National Crime Victimization Survey Crime and the Nation’s Households: 2005.” Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnh05.pdf April 2007, NCJ Report Number 217198 CCSP [U.S. Climate Change Science Program]. 2008. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. P. Backlund, A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, R.C. Izaurralde, B.A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, M.G. Ryan, S.R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. Lettenmaier, D. Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B.P. Kelly, L. Meyerson, B. Peterson, R. Shaw. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Bradbury, J.A., K.M. Branch, J.H. Heerwagen and E.B. Liebow. 1994. Community Viewpoints of the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. Summary report and eight community reports prepared for the U.S. Army and Science Applications International Corporation American Association for Public Opinion Research 2008. Best Practices for Survey and Public Opinion Research http://www.aapor.org/bestpractices (accessed July 30, 2008). D. M. Reiner, T. E. Curry, M. A. de Figueiredo, H. J. Herzog, S. D. Ansolabehere, K. Itaoka, F. Johnsson, and M. Odenberger 2006. “American Exceptionalism? Similarities and Differences in National Attitudes Toward Energy Policy and Global Warming..” Environ. Sci. Technol., 40 (7), 2093 -2098, 2006. 10.1021/es052010b S0013-936X(05)02010-9 Simon Shackley, Carly McLachlan and Clair Gough. 2005. Chapter 6: The Public Perception of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UK: Results from Focus Groups and a Survey.” An Integrated Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UK. Edited by: Clair Gough and Simon Shackley. The Tyndall Center. Technical Report 47. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme2/final_reports/t2_21.pdf Congressional Research Service. 2008. Community Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Infrastructure: Siting Challenges. CRS Report RL34601. July 29, 2008. IPCC, 2005: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp. 28. Dietz, Thomas and Paul Stern (eds). 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. National Research Council. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. 29. Lehr, R.L., W. Guild, D.L. Thomas and B.G. Swezey. 2003. Listening to Customers: How Deliberative Polling Helped Build 1,000 MW of New Renewable Energy Projects in Texas. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO
http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/energy/2003/renewable_energy.pdf