I have just finished watching "Before the Flood". If you haven't, its essentially 90 minutes of Leonardo Di Caprio indulging in smug environmentalism. Nonetheless, it also contains some accurate, thought-provoking climate science and, regrettably, some scaremongering too. The documentary is available on Youtube, see below.
After watching, I read the comments from Youtube users who watched the documentary. Many of the comments struck a familiar theme. Despite having spent 90 minutes of their lives watching a documentary about climate change, many didn't want their lifestyles to be influenced in combatting climate change.
Veganism? Eurgh, all those leaves.
Electric cars? But i'm charging my iPad, where do I plug it in?
No beef? What, not even Mcdonalds?
Renewable energy? Oh, but all those ugly windmills! Its all a hoax anyway, DONALD KNOWS!
Marketing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Watching and reading I began to think about the role of CCS in combatting climate change. What would be the opinion of the commenters? If CCS was to become a major component of our energy system, how would it go about succeeding where other initiatives have failed - in getting the public on side?
I came up with a four point plan. If, tomorrow, I was put in front of a politician and told to convince them to implement CCS, this is what i'd say:
- Emphasise that no change in lifestyle is needed on the part of the consumer. CCS essentially allows guilt free use of popular energy intensive products. This is touched upon in this paper (in press) by Kruger, T. Kruger discusses how CCS has become more attractive in the face of the Paris Agreement because of how it supports the continued dominance of a centralised fossil fuel industry.
- Encourage investment and support from big business on the basis of the potential economic benefit from CCS. One such example would be petroleum companies, who would benefit from a policy which doesn't inhibit their profits. Again this is discussed in the Kruger paper. Kruger highlights that the behaviour of consumers can often mirror the opinion of large corporations because of advertising and marketing campaigns.
- Highlight the weaknesses of the rivals. For example, CCS allows continued energy production from reliable sources such as gas and coal. Alternatives, such as renewables, can be unreliable in their supply. However, the success of countries such as Uruguay in implementing renewables may make this pitch difficult.
- Don't alienate people. I can't emphasis the importance of this enough. Don't push people to supporting CCS. In some circles of society, such as the middle-class intelligentsia, refuting environmentalist ideas is viewed as sacrilege. Outside of these circles, resentment can build when such accusations are made, promoting the alternate viewpoint. One such dividing example is the Prius - Toyota's hybrid car. To a person struggling to make ends meet, it represents a clique of well-educated, sandal wearing, vegan environmentalists out of touch with the plight of the average person. See this blog from an angry American. CCS must not be tarnished with this brush.
Conclusions
Without the support of the Youtube commenters, any future development in CCS is doomed to failure. Only with a broad spectrum of public opinion can such a large undertaking ever work. Only through a targeted marketing campaign is this possible. Perhaps most importantly, it mustn't alienate the very people it hopes to recruit.
In my earlier posts I have explored the geological aspect of CCS. My remaining posts will explore the viability of the above statements - as well as other questions such as: What does CCS mean for energy bills? Is it economically viable? Where is public opinion?
Keep your eyes out!
Hi Lewis, really enjoying your blog series, such an interesting topic! Why haven't I heard about CCS before? It seems like such a great solution but is not often discussed in public discourse on climate change, why do you think this is?
ReplyDeleteHi Natalie. I'm still developing my own ideas and opinions on CCS, which is part of the reason why i'm writing this blog series. At present my own viewpoint is that the barriers to CCS are threefold:
ReplyDelete1) NIMBYism - even if the technology is proven for EOR, people just don't like the idea of vast volumes of gas being pumped into the ground beneath their houses. Fracking is a classic example of this.
2) Finance - i'm currently researching a blog topic that i'll be posting next week, about the economics of the Boundary Dam project. I won't divulge to much, (to make you come back next week!) but there are major financial challenges in the earlier phases of CCS (i.e facilities building). For many, CCS is just to expensive.
3) An ethical argument. The people in society who promote environmental changes, the green movement, tend not to support CCS because:
- It is very industrial in it's nature.
- It involves collaboration with trans national corporations, such as oil companies, who are generally seen as the enemy.
- The argument that, when renewable energy, which produces zero emissions when up and running, is a better alternative to CCS. The green movement favours this because it takes power away from oil monopolies and can be approached from a bottom up perspective. CCS can only really be implemented from top down.
Hi Lewis,
ReplyDeleteI really agree with your final point about not alienating people. I think that in many environmental causes this has been a real issue. I read the other week that republicans are more likely to support schemes that mitigate climate change if they are industrial in nature, such as nuclear power. Do you think CCS has a benefit in this sense, that the industrial nature of it will promote its growth amongst such circles?
Cheers, Thomas Felix Murray
Hello Thomas,
ReplyDeleteCertainly, I do agree with you. If you have seen my recent blogs on the Boundary Dam CCS project, i'm sure that you will agree, without the support of Cenevous Energy the project wouldn't have got off the ground.
This raises a whole new moral argument around CCS for me. Sure, with the support of big polluters CCS could probably evolve into the norm - but then you're just supporting the status quo. And of course, the effectiveness of CCS decline signicfantly when the captured CO2 is used to produce oil.
So, to answer your question: Yes, the industrial nature of CCS will certainly attract a wider circle of potential suitors than traditional environmentalist ideas, but will that be a positive or a negative? We can only wait and see.