Communicating Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies: Opportunities and Constraints across Media

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Energy created regional joint governmentindustry partnerships as part of a larger incentive to develop carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies to address the issue of climate change. As part of their missions, DOE and their partners are responsible for creating and distributing public outreach and education materials discussing climate change and CCS technologies. In this dissertation, I sought to evaluate processes for communicating CCS to the public by examining different pathways including direct communication through DOE and regional partnership websites (Chapter I), news media from states with energy projects proposed or underway (Chapter II), and alternative strategies for communication such as an online educational game for youth (Chapter IV). My study also included focus groups in communities where CCS technologies have been piloted to determine public knowledge and acceptance of CCS (Chapter III). In Chapter I, a critique of DOE and partnership websites, I found authority to be a dominant theme throughout DOE and partnership website content, often incorporating technical jargon beyond laymen understanding and, in many cases, targeting industry audiences over the intended public. In Chapter II, I analyzed newspaper articles from the states of Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana and Texas using Luhmann’s social theory and the SPEED framework to determine how CCS has been framed by the media. Findings indicated that political, legal, economic and technical frames dominated, with emphasis on benefits, rather than risks of adoption. I also found that CCS reporting increased dramatically as pilot projects started to come on line. In my study of community acceptance of CCS in the American Southwest, Chapter III, I found that participants focused their conversations on industry and government knowledge, risks and unknowns of CCS and processes for decision-making. These topics also provided an impetus for caution. Skepticism and distrust of government entities and corporations influenced participant willingness to accept storage risks to mitigate for CO2 emissions. After open discussion of pros and cons associated with the technology, however, participants were more willing to consider CCS as an option, indicating a need to talk through the issue and to come to their own conclusions. Finally, in focus groups used to evaluate of an online game titled The Adventures of Carbon Bond, I found that it was difficult for participants to discuss environmental issues with students that are viewed as contentious (i.e. climate change and CCS), but that gaming was a valuable tool for addressing such sensitive subjects. Overall, these four chapters demonstrate that communication of CCS has only reached portions of the public and has not consistently connected with those potentially impacted by the technology. They also show that CCS must overcome numerous barriers to deployment, foremost of which is public acceptance

Socio-political dimensions of CCS deployment through the lens of social network analysis

AbstractThe Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED) framework was proposed to improve understanding of energy technology deployment. It was intended to help energy policy-makers develop and implement more effective strategies to accelerate the deployment of emerging energy technologies. The theoretical underpinnings lie in the fields of sustainability science, political science, and risk perception. Part of the objectives of the SPEED framework are to identify the dominant socio-political influences on energy technology decisions and examine how policy can facilitate a societal response to climate change by contributing insights to stakeholders. The focus is at the state level because it is at the state level that emergent energy technologies are sited, permitted, and built. The purpose of this study was to examine the structure of communication about carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology from the perspective of individuals actively involved in decisions that affect deployment and diffusion. We use density of function-system networks to examine differences between states and categories stakeholders. The information is used to inform the discussion of the current structure of communication and how it might present either barriers or opportunities for CCS innovation. Five function systems are used, each divided into benefits (positive) or risks (negative) associated with CCS: Economic benefit (ECP), economic risk (ECN), environmental benefit (ENP), environmental risk (ENN), health and safety benefit (HLP), health and safety risk (HLN), political benefit (POP), political risk (PON), technical benefit (TEP), and technical risk (TEN). An additional category of CCS statements that could not be definitively assigned to one of these categories was included as an ‘other’ category (OTP and OTN). Networks were constructed for all stakeholders, each state, and each stakeholder type based on ties of shared intensity of communication about the particular frame. From these networks, density measurements were calculated and reported. In the case studies presented here, technical risk dominates communication about CCS at the state level. The economic, technical, and political system functions appear to present the greatest barrier due to largely negative communication. This study focuses on how the development of shared meaning creates ties between individuals in a CCS policy network

Anything but a Walk in the Park: Framing Analysis of the Adirondack State Park Land Classification Conflict

State and national park land management is rife with conflict, be it either over how land is managed within the park or how it affects adjacent private lands. The Adirondack Park in upstate New York is an especially interesting case due to its unique mix of public and private lands within the boundaries of the park, often referred to as the Blue Line. A recent land acquisition by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the resultant land classification process is the most recent conflict in the region in a long line of land use/land designation conflicts. In the wake of recent attempts for greater collaboration, we explored this conflict by conducting a framing analysis of both stakeholders' online presence (i.e., websites and blogs) and local news media coverage of the classification process. Primary stakeholders included local town residents, sportsmen groups, NYSDEC, Adirondack Park Agency, local government, and environmental groups. We found that stakeholder groups' online materials utilized frames to describe their objectives based on different values. Dominant frames included a “reasonable access” frame used by residents and town officials to highlight rights to accessible use. Environmental groups heavily used an “environmental protection” frame, highlighting the ecologically important wetlands and opportunity to increase lands designated as “Wilderness.” In news media articles, the dominant frame was the “conflict frame,” portraying the decision-making process as riddled with tension and incompatibility. These frames indicate that the conflict over land classification stems from different values of accessibility and strong wilderness protection as well as being communicated as intractable by the media

A comparative state-level analysis of carbon capture and storage (CCS) discourse among U.S. energy stakeholders and the public

AbstractPerceptions of the potential of emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) are constructed not just through technical and economic processes but also through discourse, i.e. through compelling narratives about what a technology is, what a technology might become and why it is needed and preferable to competing technologies. The influence of discourse is particularly important in the innovation phases prior to commercialization when innovation activities are focused on research, development and demonstration, and when feasibility and costs of alternatives systems cannot yet be tested by market dynamics. This paper provides a state-level comparative analysis of CCS discourse in the U.S. to provide insights about the socio-political context in which CCS technology is advancing and being considered in four different states: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, and Texas. This research combines analysis of interviews of state-level energy stakeholders and media analysis of state-level newspapers. In semi-structured interviews, state-level energy policy stakeholders were asked to explain their perceptions of the potential opportunities and risks of CCS technology within their unique state context. Interview texts were coded to assess the frequency and extent of various different frames of CCS opportunities and risks including technical, political, economic, environmental, aesthetic, and health/safety. A similar coding scheme was applied to analysis of state-level newspaper coverage of CCS technology. Here, the frequency of these different framings of CCS opportunities and risks in state-level print media was assessed. This analysis demonstrates wide variation in state-level CCS discourse and perceptions of the potential opportunities and risks associated with CCS technology. This mixed-methods approach to characterizing the socio-political context for CCS advancement in these four states contributes to improved understanding of state-level variation in energy technology innovation, provides valuable information about energy technology development in these specific states, and also offers insight into the very different sub-national discourses associated with emerging low-carbon energy technologies in the U.S

Linking Water Conservation and Natural Resource Stewardship in the Trinity River Basin

16 pp., 10 figures, 3 tablesWater conservation is a critical issue in Texas today. This publication explores the relationship between ecosystem health and land stewardship in the Trinity River Basin. It also describes how responsible land stewardship can be applied in urban and rural settings

News Media Analysis of Carbon Capture and Storage and Biomass: Perceptions and Possibilities

In the US, carbon capture and storage (CCS) has received most of its attention when coupled with the fossil fuel industry as a mitigation strategy for climate change. CCS, which is constituted as a broad suite of capture and sequestration technologies and techniques, does not preclude coupling with other energy industries such as bioenergy (bioenergy and CCS or BECCS). In this paper, we examined news media coverage of CCS and biomass individually in locations throughout the US where these technologies are being explored to determine how they are perceived and what possibilities lay in their coupling for climate change mitigation. From our analyses, we found that individually, both CCS and biomass are perceived generally as beneficial for energy development by the news media, though they are not often mentioned in combination. Combined references do, however, speak to their value for climate change mitigation and as an alternative to fossil fuels

Privileging Consumptive Use: A Critique of Ideology, Power, and Discourse in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC) defines the unique style of conservation in the North American continent which is comprised of equal and ethical public access to natural resources that are ostensibly held in trust for them by the state. Since the NAMWC was first articulated as a concept, many wildlife specialists and curriculum developers in North America have adopted the seven tenets of the model as a representation of conservation history and an important component of future management strategies. In an ideological critique of the model, we argue that its narrow stakeholder focus and ideological representation limits both a broader spectrum of citizen involvement in wildlife management decisions and the future applicability of the model due to changing values toward nature. We draw on discourse and hegemony theory to critique written descriptions of the tenets from Geist et al. (2001) and other academic and popular literature addressing the model. We found that the NAMWC focuses its rhetoric on hunters and wildlife management practitioners, but excludes or marginalises non-consumptive users, policy-makers and other conservation practitioners. We argue for a broadening of the philosophical model to accommodate a variety of ideologies and diffuse powerful interests that have built up around the model