“Not in (or Under) My Backyard”: Geographic Proximity and Public Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage Facilities

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an innovative technical approach to mitigate the problem of climate change by capturing carbon dioxide emissions and injecting them underground for permanent geological storage. CCS has been perceived both positively, as an innovative approach to facilitate a more environmentally benign use of fossil fuels while also generating local economic benefits, and negatively, as a technology that prolongs the use of carbon-intensive energy sources and burdens local communities with prohibitive costs and ecological and human health risks. This article extends existing research on the "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) phenomenon in a direction that explores the public acceptance of CCS. We utilize survey data collected from 1,001 residents of the coal-intensive U.S. state of Indiana. Over 80% of respondents express support for the general use of CCS technology. However, 20% of these initial supporters exhibit a NIMBY-like reaction and switch to opposition as a CCS facility is proposed close to their communities. Respondents' worldviews, their beliefs about the local economic benefits that CCS will generate, and their concerns about its safety have the greatest impact on increasing or decreasing the acceptance of nearby facilities. These results lend valuable insights into the perceived risks associated with CCS technology and the possibilities for its public acceptance at both a national and local scale. They may be extended further to provide initial insights into likely public reactions to other technologies that share a similar underground dimension, such as hydraulic fracturing.

[1]  Pushpam Kumar Agriculture (Chapter8) in IPCC, 2007: Climate change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[2]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY , 2006 .

[3]  H Jenkins-Smith,et al.  Mitigation and Benefits Measures as Policy Tools for Siting Potentially Hazardous Facilities: Determinants of Effectiveness and Appropriateness , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  C. Feenstra,et al.  Stakeholder participation practices and onshore CCS: Lessons from the dutch CCS case barendrecht , 2011 .

[5]  Peta Ashworth,et al.  What's in store: lessons from implementing CCS , 2012 .

[6]  Renée J. Johnson,et al.  Don’t Call Me NIMBY , 2012 .

[7]  Laurie Buys,et al.  Initial public perceptions of carbon sequestration : implications for engagement and environmental risk communication strategies , 2008 .

[8]  Paul Upham,et al.  The Public and CCS: The importance of communication and participation in the context of local realities , 2011 .

[9]  Carly McLachlan,et al.  The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey , 2004 .

[10]  Howard J. Herzog,et al.  How aware is the public of carbon capture and storage , 2005 .

[11]  Mhairi Aitken,et al.  Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature , 2010 .

[12]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support , 2000 .

[13]  Michael Dear,et al.  Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome , 1992 .

[14]  Barry G. Rabe,et al.  Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States , 1994 .

[15]  D. Horst NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies , 2007 .

[16]  P. Devine‐Wright Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action , 2009 .

[17]  Carol L. Silva,et al.  Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  R. Kerr Energy. Natural gas from shale bursts onto the scene. , 2010, Science.

[19]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Construction of New Power Plants , 2009 .

[20]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Public acceptance of CCS system elements: A conjoint measurement , 2012 .

[21]  Kenshi Itaoka,et al.  Influential information and factors for social acceptance of CCS: The 2nd round survey of public opinion in Japan , 2009 .

[22]  P. Devine‐Wright Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: A tidal energy case study , 2011 .

[23]  Rachel M. Krause,et al.  Early public impressions of terrestrial carbon capture and storage in a coal-intensive state. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[24]  Carissa Schively,et al.  Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research , 2007 .

[25]  David L. Myers,et al.  Public Response to Prison Siting , 2005 .

[26]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[27]  Paul W. Parfomak,et al.  Community Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Infrastructure: Siting Challenges , 2008 .

[28]  Dimensions of hazardous waste politics and policy , 1989 .

[29]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Lay concepts on CCS deployment in Switzerland based on qualitative interviews , 2009 .

[30]  M Granger Morgan,et al.  Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[31]  Bart W. Terwel,et al.  Initial public reactions to carbon capture and storage (CCS): differentiating general and local views , 2012 .

[32]  M. Kraft,et al.  Citizen Participation and the Nimby Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal , 1991 .

[33]  Sallie E Greenberg,et al.  Dual-track CCS stakeholder engagement: Lessons learned from FutureGen in Illinois , 2011 .

[34]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , 2013 .

[35]  R. Ellis,et al.  Culture and the Environment in the Pacific Northwest , 1997, American Political Science Review.

[36]  Al Anneloes Meijnders,et al.  Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage , 2007 .

[37]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[38]  C. Starr Social benefit versus technological risk. , 1969, Science.

[39]  Michael D. Jones Leading the Way to Compromise? Cultural Theory and Climate Change Opinion , 2011, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[40]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and Culture , 1983 .

[41]  Elisabeth Dütschke,et al.  What drives local public acceptance–Comparing two cases from Germany , 2011 .