Perceptions of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in different policy scenarios

Rob Bellamy,Javier Lezaun,James Palmer

doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08592-5

Abstract

There is growing interest in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a possible technology for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. In the first study of its kind, we investigate whether and how different forms of incentivisation impact on public perceptions of this technology. We develop a new experimental method to triangulate perceptions of BECCS in different policy scenarios through quantitative measurement and qualitative elicitation. Here we show that the type of policy instrument used to incentivise BECCS significantly affects perceptions of the technology itself. While we find approval of coercive and persuasion-based policy scenarios for incentivisation, supportive instruments proved polarising. Payments based on the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere were approved, but guarantees of higher prices for producers selling energy derived from BECCS were strongly opposed. We conclude that public support for BECCS is inextricably linked to attitudes towards the policies through which it is incentivised.

Highlights

There is growing interest in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a possible technology for removing CO2 from the atmosphere
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that meeting these targets is still possible, but most modelling scenarios assume this will require extensive deployment of negative emissions technologies (NETs) by the end of the century, and most of those scenarios have relied on bioenergy with carbon capture (BECCS) to deliver the necessary levels of carbon dioxide removal[1,2]
This study explored public perceptions of BECCS using an experimental, mixed methods approach that situated the technology within three different policy scenarios

Summary

Introduction

There is growing interest in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a possible technology for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Rather than assuming that public views are formed in relation to the technical characteristics of the technology, we assert that they emerge with regard to tightly coupled sociotechnical systems within which those technical features are embedded[11,13,14,15] Despite these novel aspects, and in line with increasing moves to broaden research on public participation in the development of new technologies[16], it is important that our study be seen within the extant wider ecology of studies on the public legitimacy of alternative options for decarbonisation. To characterise these three alternative BECCS policy scenarios, we used a modified version of Bemelmans-Videc et al.’s17 tripartite typology of economic, regulatory and informational policy instruments: carrots, sticks and sermons

Methods

Results

Conclusion