Public Perceptions of Energy Choices: The Influence of Beliefs about Climate Change and the Environment

Abstract

Past research has documented high levels of public concern for risks relating to nuclear power, with opposition to nuclear energy particularly being linked with general environmental concern. However recent UK energy policy, and other debates worldwide, has led to a repositioning of nuclear power as a ‘low carbon’ electricity source with potential benefits for mitigating climate change. Whilst many previous studies have examined perceptions of climate change and nuclear energy separately, this large British public attitude survey explores relationships between the two as well as with perceptions of other energy sources. Both general environmental concern and concerns about climate change were linked with positive evaluations of renewables and negative evaluations of nuclear power. We conclude that, despite the policy positioning of nuclear power as a low carbon electricity source, most people concerned about climate change continue to perceive nuclear negatively, something partially explained by general environmental concerns.

Keywords

Perceptions Climate Change Nuclear Power

References

IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution Of Working Groups I, II, And III To The Fourth Assessment Report Of The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

DTI (2006). The Energy Challenge: Energy Review Report 2006. London: HM Government.

BERR (2008a). A White Paper On Nuclear Power. London: HM Government.

BERR (2008b). The Future Of Nuclear Power: Analysis Of Consultation Responses. London: HM Government.

Petroll

and Tweiten

(2007). US plans for new nuclear power plants: Who, what, how, why? International Journal for Nuclear Power, 52, 230.

Rosa

E.A.

, (2007). The Public Climate For Nuclear Power: The Changing Of Seasons, Paper presented at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy Conference: The Role of Nuclear Power in Global and Domestic Energy Policy. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC (3–4 October, 2007).

Guldner

(2007). Worldwide perspectives of nuclear power use. International Journal for Nuclear Power, 52, 484.

Welsh

(2000). Mobilising Modernity: The Nuclear Moment. London and New York: Routledge.

Bickerstaff

Simmons

and Pidgeon

(2008). Constructing responsibility for risk(s): Negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1312–1330.

10.

Pidgeon

N. F.

Lorenzoni

, and Poortinga

(2008). Climate change or nuclear power – No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 18, 69–85.

11.

Poortinga

Pidgeon

N.F.

and Lorenzoni

(2006). Public Perceptions Of Nuclear Power, Climate Change And Energy Options In Britain: Summary Findings Of A Survey Conducted During October And November 2005. Technical Report Understanding Risk Working Paper 06–02). Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk. Available at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/energy_futures_full_report.pdf

12.

OST/MORI (2004). Science In Society – Findings From Qualitative And Quantitative research, Conducted For The Office Of Science And Technology, Department Of Trade And Industry. London, UK: MORI Social Research Institute.

13.

Eurobarometer (2007). Attitudes On Issues Related To EU Energy Policy – Analytic Report (Flash Eurobarometer 206a). Europe: European Commission.

14.

Poortinga

and Pidgeon

(2003a). Public Perceptions Of Risk, Science And Governance: Main Findings Of A British Survey Of Five Risk Cases. Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk.

15.

Eurobarometer (2006). Energy Technologies: Knowledge, Perception, Measures (EUR 22396). Europe: European Commission.

16.

Norton

and Leaman

(2004). The Day After Tomorrow: Public Opinion On Climate Change. London, UK: MORI Social Research Institute.

17.

Leiserowitz

(2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic change, 77, 45–72.

18.

Lorenzoni

(2003). Present Choices, Future Climates: A Cross-Cultural Study Of perceptions In Italy And In The UK. Doctoral Thesis, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

19.

Zwick

M. M.

and Renn

(Eds), (2002). Perception And Evaluation Of Risks. Findings Of The Baden-Wurttemberg Risk Survey 2001. Joint working report by the Centre of Technology Assessment in Baden-Wurttemberg and the University of Stuttgart, Sociology of Technologies and Environment, Germany.

20.

Lorenzoni

and Pidgeon

N. F.

(2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77, 73–95.

21.

Kirby

(2004). The Climate Change Special Poll. Accessed: 30 April 2008. URL: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_07_04_climatepoll.pdf>.

22.

Palutikof

J. P.

Agnew

M. D.

and Hoar

M. R.

(2004). Public Perceptions Of Unusually Warm Weather In The UK: Impacts, Responses And Adaptations. Climate Research, 26, 43–59.

23.

AccountAbility and Consumers International (2007). What Assures Consumers On Climate Change? Switching On Citizen Power. Accessed: 30 April 2008. URL: <http://www.accountability21.net/pubslist.aspx?id=808>.

24.

Energy Saving Trust (2007). Green Barometer: Measuring Environmental Attitude. London: Energy Saving Trust.

25.

MORI (2007). Climate Change Questionnaire: Public Affairs Monitor. UK: MORI Social Research Institute.

26.

Lorenzoni

Nicholson-Cole

Whitmarsh

(2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17(3–4), 445–459

27.

Bickerstaff

Lorenzoni

Pidgeon

N. F.

Poortinga

and Simmons

(2008). Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 145–169.

28.

Cvetkovich

and Lofstedt

(1999). Social Trust And The Management Of Risk. London: Earthscan.

29.

Rohrmann

and Renn

(2000). Risk perception research – An introduction. In Renn

and Rohrmann

(eds.), Cross-cultural Risk Perception – A Survey Of Empirical Studies. The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 11–54.

30.

Poortinga

and Pidgeon

N. F.

(2003b). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23, 961–971.

31.

Semadeni

Hansmann

and Flueler

(2004) Public attitudes in relation to risks and novelty of future energy options, Energy and Environment, 15, 755–777.

32.

Hansla

Gamble

Juliusson

and Garling

(2008). Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy, 36, 768–774.

33.

MORI Scotland for BBC Scotland (2005). Hebridean Windfarm Plans. UK: MORI Social Research Institute.

34.

London Renewables (2003). Attitudes To Renewable Energy In London: Public And Stakeholder Opinion And The Scope For Progress. London; Greater London Authority.

35.

McGowan

and Sauter

(2005). Public Opinion On Energy Research: A Desk Study For The Research Councils. Brighton, Sussex: Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU).

36.

RSPB (2001). RSPB Market Research Project 0136: The GB Public's View On Energy Issues. London, BMRB.

37.

Shackley

and McLachlan

(2006). Trade-offs in assessing different energy futures: A regional multi-criteria assessment of the role of carbon dioxide capture and storage. Environmental Science & Policy, 9, 376–391.

38.

Kaatsch

Spix

Schultz-Rath

Schmiedel

and Blettner

(2008) Leukaemia an young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. International Journal of Cancer, 1220, 721–726.

39.

Schrader-Frechette

(2005). Mortgaging the future: Dumping ethics with nuclear waste. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2005, 11(4), 518–520.

40.

Eiser

J. R.

Van Der Pligt

, and Spears

(1995). Nuclear Neighbourhoods: Community Responses to Reactor Siting. Exeter, Devon: University of Exeter Press.

41.

Slovic

(2000). The Perception Of Risk. London: Earthscan.

42.

NIA/MORI (2007). Public Attitudes To The Nuclear Industry. London, UK: MORI Social Research Institute.

43.

Ansolabahere

(2007). Public Attitudes Towards America's Energy Options: Report Of The 2007 MIT Energy Survey. Massachusetts, US: CEEPR (Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research).

44.

Eurobarometer (2008). Attitudes Towards Radioactive Waste (Special Eurobarometer 297). Europe: European Commission.

45.

Castro

(2006). Applying social psychology to the study of environmental concern and environmental worldviews: Contributions from the social representations approach. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 247–266.

46.

Darley

J. M.

and Gilberrt

D. T.

(1985). Social psychological aspects of environmental psychology. In Lindzey

and Aronson

(Eds.), The Handbook Of Social Psychology, 3rd edition, Volume II (pp. 949–991). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

47.

Dunlap

R. E.

and Catton

W. R.

(1979). Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 5, 243–273.

48.

Dunlap

R. E.

and Van Liere

K. D.

(1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.

49.

Douglas

and Wildavsky

(1982). Risk And Culture: An Essay On The Selection Of Technical And Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

50.

Dake

and Wildavsky

(1991). Individual differences in risk perception and risk-taking preferences. In Garrick

B. J.

and Gekler

W. C.

(Eds.), The Analysis, Communication And Perception Of Risk (pp. 98–117). New York: Plenum.

51.

Schwarz

and Thompsn

(1990). Divided We Stand. Redefining Politics, Technology And Social Choice. Exeter, UK: Wheatons.

52.

Ellis

R. J.

and Thompson

(1997). Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. American Political Science Review, 91, 885–897.

53.

Peters

and Slovic

(1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1427–1453.

54.

Jenkins-Smith

H. C.

(1993). Nuclear Imagery And Regional Stigma: Testing Hypotheses Of Image Acquisition And Valuation Regarding Nevada. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico, Institute for Public Policy.

55.

Webber

D. J.

(1982). Is nuclear power just another environmental issue? Environment and Behaviour, 14, 72–83.

56.

Levi

D.J.

and Holder

E.E.

(1986). Nuclear power: The dynamics of acceptability. Environment and Behaviour, 18, 385–395.

57.

Borcherding

Rohrmann

and Eppel

(1986). A psychological study on the cognitive structure of risk evaluations. In Brehmer

Jungermann

Lourens

and Sevon

(Eds.) New Directions In Research On Decision Making, (pp 245–262). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

58.

Sjöberg

(2003). Distal factors in risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 6, 187–211.

59.

Gough

and Shackley

(2002). The respectable politics of climate change: The epistemic communities and NGOs. International Affairs, 77, 329–346.

60.

Menard

(1995). Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Sage University Paper Series On Quantitative Applications In The Social Sciences, 07–106. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

61.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Krull

J. L.

and Lockwood

C. M.

(2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.

62.

Buss

D.M.

Craik

K.H.

and Dake

(1986) Contemporary worldviews and the perception of the technological system. In Covello

V. T.

Menkes

and Mumpower

(Eds) Risk Evaluation And Management. New York: Plenum.

63.

Whitfield

S. C.

Rosa

E. A.

Dan

and Dietz

(2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29, 425–437.

64.

DEFRA (2007). Climate Change Bill. London: HM Government.

65.

Venables

Pidgeon

N.F.

Simmons

Henwood

and Parkhill

(2009) Living with nuclear power in Britain: A Q-method study of local community perceptions. Risk Analysis, 29, 1089–1104

66.

Finucane

M. L.

Alhakami

Slovic

and Johnson

S. M.

(2000). The affect heuristic in judgements of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 13, 1–7.

67.

Siegrist

Keller

and Cousin

(2006). Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: Support for the Affect Heuristic. Risk Analysis, 1021–1029.

68.

Rosa

E.A.

and Clark

D. L.

(1999). Historical routes to technological gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 7: 21–57.

69.

UKERC (2009). Making The Transition To A Secure And Low-Carbon Energy System: Synthesis Report. London: UKERC.