Development of CCS projects in Poland. How to communicate with the local public?

Energy Procedia

Volumn 51, Issue , 2014, Pages 267-273

  Kaiser, Marta ^a   Zimmer, René ^b   Brunsting, Suzanne ^c   Mastop, Jessanne ^c   Pol, Mariëtte ^c  

^a UfU Independent Institute for Environmental Issues   (Germany)

^b Shaping Change Together   (Germany)

^c TNO   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

CCS; Public engagement; Risk communication; Social acceptance; Social site characterization

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; CHARACTERIZATION; ECONOMICS; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES; EUROPEAN COUNTRIES; POTENTIAL STORAGE SITES; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; RISK COMMUNICATION; SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE; SOCIAL SITES;

CARBON CAPTURE;

EID: 84906963106     PISSN: 18766102     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.031     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Serzysko, A. Akceptacja spo?eczeństwa dla rozwoju technologii czystego w?gla i CCS w Polsce. Analizy i opinie CSM 6/2010.
2. The World Bank. Translation a low-emissions economy in Poland, Washington 2011.
3. Ministerstwo Gospodarki. Polityka energetyczna Polski do 2030 roku. Warszawa; 2009.
4. Kaiser, M. Die Bedeutung der CCS-Technologie für eine emissionsarme Energieversorgung in Polen. UfU-Paper 6/2012, Berlin 2012.
5. 2 report, 2011.
6. Dütschke, E. What drives local public acceptance-comparing two cases from Germany. Energy Procedia 2011; 4: 6234-6240.
7. Brunsting, S., De Best-Waldhober, M., Feenstra, C.F.J., & Mikunda, T. Stakeholder Participation and Onshore CCS: Lessons from the Dutch CCS Case Barendrecht. Energy Procedia 2011; 4: 6376-6383.
8. Wade, S., Greenberg, S. Afraid to start because the outcome is uncertain? Social site characterisation as a tool for informing public engagement efforts. Energy Procedia 2009; 1: 4641-4647.
9. 2 storage, 2011.
10. 2 storage, 2012.
11. 2 storage operations to inform public engagement in Poland and Scotland. Energy Procedia, accepted and to be published in 2013.
12. 2 wraz z ich programem monitorowania, Available at: http://skladowanie.pgi.gov.pl/twiki/pub/CO2/ WynikiPrac/I-0-wst%EAp.pdf, 2012.
13. Wade, S., & Greenberg, S. Social Site Characterisation: From Concept to Application. A re-view of relevant social science literature and a toolkit for social site characterisation. Available at https://www.globalccsinstitute. com/sites/default/files/publications/16456/social-sitecharacterisation-concept- application.pdf, 2011.
14. Joss, S. Making technology accountable: citizens' conferences in the era of public accountability. Diacritica 2009; 23 (2): 299-316.
15. Einsiedel, E.F., Jelsoe, E., ANd Breck, T. Publics at the technology table: the consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, And Australia. Public Understanding of Science 2001; 10(1): 83-98.
16. Byers, P and Wilcox, J. Focus Groups: A qualitative opportunity for researchers, Journal of Business Commuication 1991; 28: 63-78.
17. 2 storage, 2012.