Análisis de Patrones y Tendencias

Review  of  published  literature  on  public  engagement  practices  (Chapter  5),  allied  to   discussion   within   the   Interdisciplinary   Cluster   on   Energy   Systems,   Equity   and   Vulnerability  (INCLUSEV)  CCS  working  meeting  in  Edinburgh  (March  2009)  resulted   in  the  first  consideration  of  an  open  public  dialogue  event  as  a  research  tool.  For   the   purposes   of   this   study,   I   deemed   a   purely   survey   based   investigation   inappropriate   due   to   the   previously   (Chapter   5.4)   explained   shortcomings  

157 expressed  by  de  Best-­‐Waldhober  and  Daamen  (2006)  and  Malone  et  al.  (2010),  in   addition   to   the   critique   of   unidirectional   flow   of   information   (Rowe   and   Frewer,   2005).   Therefore,   I   decided   that   a   public   debate   format,   comparable   to   the   BBC   Radio  Four’s  current  affairs  programme  ‘Any  Questions’,  was  capable  of  producing   the   bi-­‐directional   flow   of   information   between   panel   and   audience   critical   for   effective  public  participation  (Rowe  and  Frewer,  2005).  An  interactive  process  was   critical   to   my   experiment   as   its   purpose   was   to   assess   the   significance   of   public   engagement   and   not   to   convince   or   dissuade   the   public   about   the   merits   or   demerits  of  carbon  capture  technology.  

When  planning  the  event,  several  issues  had  to  be  given  careful  consideration.  For   the  venue,  a  city  centre  location  was  preferable  due  to  ease  of  access  by  transport   links  and  the  potential  it  offered  for  demographic  diversity  in  the  recruitment  of  an   audience.  The  Centre  for  Life  venue  in  Newcastle  was  approached  by  virtue  of  its   location.   It   also   provided   the   option   of   including   the   debate   in   the   official   programme   of   the   Newcastle   Science   Festival.   The   Science   Festival   is   an   annual   event  organised  by  the  Centre  for  Life  in  collaboration  with  universities  in  the  north   east  region  as  well  as  other  organisations  aimed  at  showcasing  science  to  all  levels   and  age  groups.  The  benefits  to  my  experiment  of  being  part  of  the  Science  Festival   were  significant,  primarily  in  terms  of  advertising  the  event  to  a  more  extensive  and   diverse  audience    than  might  be  possible  for  a  standalone  event.    

The  selection  of  the  debate  panel  and  the  chairperson  were  critical.  It  posed  one  of   the  significant  variables  that  had  the  potential  to  skew  the  balance  of  the  debate  in   a  positive  or  negative  direction.    In  mitigation  of  this,  a  balance  between  members  

158 who   were   for,   against   and   undecided   was   desirable   for   the   composition   of   the   panel.     It   was   also   important   that   each   panel   member   should   come   from   a   background  that  enabled  them  to  be  perceived  as  unbiased  towards  financial  gain   or   to   champion   specific   project.   They   needed   to   lack   commercial   ties   and   be   sufficiently  well  informed  to  speak  knowledgeably.  

Taking  account  of  the  literature  emphasising  the  role  of  trust  in  public  participation,   (Douglas,  1992)  I  decided  that  the  candidate  most  likely  to  speak  in  favour  of  CCS   technologies   -­‐   the   ‘for’   candidate,   should   be   an   academic   rather   than   a   representative   of   a   commercial   developer   of   CCS.   In   general,   public   trust   in   big   corporations   such   as   BP,   Shell   and   other   multinational   oil   corporations   with   expertise   and   interests   in   CCS   is   low.   This   perception   is   based   on   evidence   an   analysis  from  media  coverage  of  oil  related  accidents  which  shows  certain  sectors   of   society   are   most   likely   to   believe   that   corporations   are   more   concerned   with   profit   than   safety,   environmental   protection   and   ethics   (Bowman,   2010;   Edman,   2013).  Prof.  Jon  Gluyas,  Chair  of  CCS  Research  at  Durham  University  was  selected  as   the  candidate  who  would  speak  in  favour  of  CCS  due  to  his  high  level  of  expertise   on  the  subject,  and  his  intricate  knowledge  of  the  UK  North  Sea;  the  likely  location   for   geological   storage   sites   from   operations   in   north   east   England,   where   the   debate  was  taking  place.    

Finding   a   panel   member   to   speak   against   CCS   was   difficult.   Environmental   NGO’s   were   an   obvious   choice   as   they   are   mostly   campaigning   against   CCS.   However,   these  organisations  and  the  hard  line  protests  that  are  undertaken  in  their  name   frequently   polarise   public   opinion.   Consequently   the   ideal   candidate   to   voice   the  

159 arguments   against   CCS   needed   to   possess   an   accurate   grasp   of   the   subject   with   which  to  communicate  their  views  against  the  technology,  whilst  at  the  same  time   being  perceived  as  being  trustworthy  in  the  eyes  of  the  public.  The  rationale  behind   the  debate  was  to  provide  legitimate  information  delivered  by  a  balanced  panel  as   this  was  critical  to  the  way  in  which  the  audience  may  be  influenced  when  drawing   their   own   conclusions.   The   Green   Party   for   the   North   East   and   Newcastle   was   approached   for   a   candidate   and   recommended   Sandy   Irvine.   Mr   Irvine   has   a   background  in  education,  a  long-­‐term  interest  in  sustainability  and  climate  change   and  a  reputation  for  being  well  informed.  His  position  on  CCS  is  that  it  is  the  wrong   method  to  combat  climate  change  with  unacceptable  costs  in  comparison  to  more   sustainable  renewable  methods.    

Originally   I   envisaged   that   there   should   be   one   neutral   candidate,   but   as   a   sufficiently  well  informed  ‘neutral’  was  hard  to  find,  I  decided  instead  that  two  pro   CCS   panel   members   with   differing   backgrounds   and   degrees   of   strength   of   commitment   could   be   beneficial   to   the   dynamic   of   the   panel.   Roberta   Blackman-­‐

Woods  was  selected  as  a  serving  MP  (Labour)  for  Durham  City.  She  possesses  an   excellent  knowledge  of  the  current  political  standing  of  CCS,  and  holds  a  position  of   responsibility  in  the  northeast  region  and  is  inclined  to  favour  CCS  as  a  means  to   boosting   the   local   economy.   The   appointment   of   Mrs   Blackman-­‐Woods   on   the   panel  further  added  a  well-­‐known  ‘name’  to  assist  in  the  advertising  of  the  event.  

This   generated   interest   from   both   the   local   and   national   press   in   addition   to   commercial   organisations   and   associations.   Mr   Ross   Weddle   of   the   Community   Renewable  Energy  (CoRE)  Co-­‐op  was  selected  as  a  panellist  for  his  credentials  as  a  

160 specialist  in  sustainable  development  at  a  community  level.  The  CoRE  Co-­‐operative   implement  community  run  bio-­‐digesters,  solar,  wind  and  micro-­‐generation  projects   via  a  not  for  profit  organisation.  His  position  is  that  carbon  reduction  targets  and   energy  targets  can  best  be  met  by  bringing  responsibility  into  the  local  community.  

Despite  this  he  believes  that  CCS  has  its  place  in  the  larger  scale  de-­‐carbonisation  of   the  energy  sector.  However  he  has  reservations  surrounding  the  costs  and  that  CCS   may  interfere  with  investment  in  renewable  technologies,  but  broadly  accepts  that   renewable  energy  alone  cannot  currently  meet  energy  demands.  Consequently  he   regards   CCS   as   a   potentially   important   tool   in   the   transition   to   a   fully   renewable   energy  future.    

The   selection   of   the   chairperson   presented   significant   challenges.   Concerns   for   attracting  an  audience  led  me  to  consider  inviting  a  well  known  name  with  social   standing   and   a   reputation   for   fairness.   Primary   targets   were   Radio   4’s   Quentin   Cooper,  whose  Material  World  programme  had  expressed  some  interest  in  covering   a  portion  of  the  debate;  and  former  Gladiator  star  Diane  Youdale,  presenter  of  a   morning  show  on  BBC  Tees  Radio.  Diane  Youdale  had  presented  a  radio  interview   on  CCS  and  proven  to  be  well  briefed  on  the  topic.  Both  possible  candidates  were   approached   but   were   unavailable.   Further   consideration   and   discussion   with   the   science   festival   organisers,   Prof.   Paul   Younger,   Director   of   Newcastle   Institute   for   Research   on   Sustainability   at   Newcastle   University,   was   recommended   as   an   suitable   chairperson   as   he   occupies   a   trusted   position   and   due   to   his   academic   interests.   Prof.   Younger   specialises   in   sustainability   and   is   well   known   in   the   Newcastle   and   north   east   area   for   his   work   on   coal   mining,   specifically   the  

161 sustainable  use  of  fossil  fuels  and  the  impact  of  mining  on  groundwater  quality  in   addition  to  CCS  and  geothermal  energy.    

During   the   planning   stages,   it   was   decided   to   film   the   event   as   a   means   of   accurately   reviewing   the   proceedings   in   detail.   A   film   would   provide   a   precise   record  of  the  questions  and  topics  that  were  covered  and  a  verbatim  account  of  the   panellists’   replies.   Film   evidence   could   also   be   used   to   investigate   the   tone   of   responses   and   make   comments   on   the   body   language   of   both   the   panel   and   audience  which  simple  voice  recordings  (the  other  considered  method)  would  not   allow.   Following   discussion   with   Mr   Steve   Wilson,   a   professional   film   maker   with   research  interests  in  Anthropology,  it  was  decided  to  produce  a  professional  quality   recording  that  could  be  broadcast  live  on  the  internet  allowing  a  wider  audience.