|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
104822
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
137272
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As the threats of climate change grow, the need to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel burning is increasingly acknowledged by governments around the world. The potential of carbon capture and storage (CCS), a set of technologies that offers a politically appealing vision of a ‘cleaner’ way to use fossil fuels, has provided powerful motivation for large public and private investments in CCS technology. But investing in CCS is controversial because, although some consider it a critical climate mitigation technology, others view it as an expensive fossil fuel subsidy that could inadvertently perpetuate, rather than reduce, fossil fuel reliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
150054
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
States struggle to develop adequate climate change mitigation policies, especially when national energy interests conflict with collective environmental concerns. It is therefore crucial to understand how viable solutions may find political support on these terms. As one such case, this paper examines Norway's explicit foreign policy to promote Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a mitigation measure. I suggest that a Foreign Policy Analysis framework with a norm-centered constructivist focus allows for new insights into how climate policies function as balancing strategies between external normative pressures and important domestic concerns. It reveals how Norway's CCS policy represents an extraordinary effort to bridge seemingly contradictory agendas. The Norwegian CCS case highlights how a state may engage in innovative foreign political engineering to promote solutions to its international climate commitments on terms that fit national energy needs. It shows that climate political success may depend on successfully linking the international and domestic levels by simultaneously appealing to established norms within each system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
121327
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper makes three contributions to the developing literature on public opinion and understanding of CCS. The first is a discussion of online focus groups as a deliberative method in experimental and perhaps consultative contexts. The second is the role of anchoring and associative reasoning in the development of public opinion of CCS, illustrated through the coincidental timing of the investigation with the Fukushima nuclear accident. The third is a discussion of managing public-facing energy messaging in an age of public access to online information. Two multi-day, online focus groups or "dialogue boards" were held, one in Poland and one in Spain, with participants drawn from regions with active CCS development potential. The nature of the groups led to participants being subject to wider social influence through discussion of the topic off-line. They were also able to research and present evidence on the topic to the group, deepening debate and allowing the emergence of 'experts'. The study illustrates and affirms the importance of trust in message source, the difficulties of challenging pre-existing concerns and opinion and the challenge potentially posed by access to conflicting online information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
162948
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) are two CO2-based technologies aiming at mitigating climate change by capturing and either permanently storing CO2 (CCS) or using it as a feedstock (CCU) for commercial products, e.g., chemicals, fuels, or plastic products. Whereas the implementation of CCS has attracted considerable public opposition in Europe and the US, the CCU-technology is still in an early development stage. This research takes a social science perspective and investigates the awareness, general perception and acceptance of CCS in comparison to CCU by applying an online survey in Germany (2017, n = 509). In addition, the risk perception of single steps in the CCU/CCS process chains was explored (CCS: CO2-capturing, CO2-transport, CO2-storage; CCU: CO2-capturing, CO2-transport, temporary CO2-storage, production, product usage, product disposal). Significant differences were found for the perception and acceptance of CCS and CCU: while both technologies were generally accepted, CCU was perceived significantly more positively than CCS. CCS-acceptance was negatively influenced by storage and transport risks; for CCU, disposal and product risks decreased acceptance. Our results contribute to the development of communication concepts for a successful implementation of CO2-based technologies by considering public concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
125632
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is being considered as an option to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide. Yet recent cases show that CCS faces divergent public acceptance issues. This paper investigates stakeholder perspectives on CCS in Indonesia. Q methodology was adopted to analyse the diversity of stakeholder perspectives. Four perspectives were identified: (1) "CO2 emissions reduction through clean energy sources rather than CCS"; (2) "CCS as one of the options in the transition to a sustainable energy system"; (3) "CCS as the only optimal solution to reduce CO2 emissions"; (4) "CCS is only a tactic to keep burning coal forever". Based on these results, we argue that stakeholder acceptance of CCS should be understood as a complex notion. This means that understanding whether or under what conditions stakeholders would be willing to support CCS, requires consideration of stakeholders' viewpoints about broader questions of CO2 emission reduction and energy supply in Indonesia, rather than studying attitudes towards CCS in isolation. We discuss how the approach taken in this study can be used and followed up in policymaking on CCS in Indonesia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|