IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v18y2015i6p675-691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effective risk communication and CCS: the road to success in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Ragnar Lofstedt

Abstract

Over the past ten years or so, there have been multiple attempts to site and build carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities in Europe, North America and elsewhere. To date, most of those attempts have not been successful. In Europe, for example, there are currently no commercial CCS facilities in operation. There are a number of reasons for this, ranging from lack of political will, the collapsing price of CO 2 , lack of commercial drivers to capture and store CO 2 , and public opposition to the proposed facilities. There have been several case studies examining the communication challenges associated with the siting of CCS facilities. Up till now, most of this research has been carried out by climate change or carbon policy experts as well as social researchers rather than scientists representing the wider risk communication community, aside from some notable exceptions. This study does the opposite by examining CCS from a broader risk communication perspective. It provides a brief overview of risk communication theory in order to situate some of the findings of the CCS communication research, and then, it makes some recommendations on how the siting of CCS facilities could be improved including the importance of trust, proactive communication and early stakeholder involvement. In conclusion, this study notes that if the science associated with the technology is communicated in the correct manner and if the key risk communication recommendations are adhered to, then the siting of future CCS facilities should be successful.

Suggested Citation

  • Ragnar Lofstedt, 2015. "Effective risk communication and CCS: the road to success in Europe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 675-691, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:18:y:2015:i:6:p:675-691
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1017831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2015.1017831
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2015.1017831?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ostfeld, Rosemary & Reiner, David M., 2020. "Public views of Scotland's path to decarbonization: Evidence from citizens' juries and focus groups," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    2. Marjoke Heneweer & Tim Bertels & Ingrid Meier, 2015. "Health risk perception and effective communication regarding CCS. Commentary to 'Effective risk communication and CCS: the road to success in Europe', by Ragnar Lofstedt," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 695-698, June.
    3. Hurlbert, Margot & Osazuwa-Peters, Mac, 2023. "Carbon capture and storage in Saskatchewan: An analysis of communicative practices in a contested technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. George Gaskell & Katrin Hohl & Monica M. Gerber, 2017. "Do closed survey questions overestimate public perceptions of food risks?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 1038-1052, August.
    5. Bart W. Terwel, 2015. "Public participation under conditions of distrust: invited commentary on 'Effective risk communication and CCS: The road to success in Europe'," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 692-694, June.
    6. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Lauren A. Mayer & M. Granger Morgan, 2015. "Developing communications about CCS: three lessons learned," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 699-705, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:18:y:2015:i:6:p:675-691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.