Newswise — A recent study has delved into the contentious public debate surrounding a controversial energy technology, which is hailed as a vital tool in the fight against climate change by its proponents and condemned as being more detrimental than coal by its critics.
The United Kingdom government's plan to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050 heavily relies on Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). However, there is a lack of public awareness regarding this technology, leading to divergent opinions among scientists, politicians, and media outlets.
BECCS involves generating energy by burning plants and trees and subsequently capturing and storing the resulting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions underground.
The University of Southampton has conducted research analyzing coverage of BECCS in 166 newspaper articles to identify the prominent narratives surrounding this energy technology. The aim is to gauge its potential acceptance among the people in the UK and beyond.
Caspar Donnison, Research Fellow in Biological Sciences at the University of Southampton and the lead author of the study, emphasizes the critical role of the media in shaping the debate and public opinion on BECCS due to the limited understanding of the technology among the general population. He draws a parallel with the fracking debate, where competing storylines were employed to influence societal acceptance and determine whether the technology would become part of the UK's energy mix.
The research, published in Energy Research & Social Science, identified eight key storylines related to BECCS. Supporting BECCS were narratives such as Necessary mitigation tool, Keeping the lights on, Anchor for transition, and Revolutionary technology. In opposition to BECCS, storylines included Worse than coal, Environmental disaster, No silver bullet, and Distraction.
“Sustainable biomass” to “level up the North”
The storyline highlighting the Necessary mitigation tool aspect was prominently featured in over half of the analyzed national and regional newspaper articles. Drax Group, aiming to establish the world's largest BECCS facility at its power station in Yorkshire, played a significant role in promoting this narrative. CEO Will Gardiner utilized it more than any other individual. Additionally, Government spokespeople, the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC), Microsoft, and IPCC scenarios also referenced this storyline. The Keeping the lights on narrative gained traction following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
In Yorkshire's local media, storylines emphasizing opportunities such as Anchor for transition and Revolutionary technology were most prevalent. Local Members of Parliament referred to the concept of "closing the North-South divide," and Rishi Sunak MP, who later became Prime Minister, described the Drax project as transformative for the region's economy.
Professor Gail Taylor, co-author of the paper and John B Orr Distinguished Professor of Environmental Plant Sciences at the University of California, Davis, highlights the significant impact of Drax's proposals in Yorkshire on the UK debate. She notes that these proposals generated more articles from three regional newspapers than all the national coverage combined. The pro-BECCS coalition enjoyed a greater dominance in local news media, where the necessity framing was supplemented with promises of socioeconomic benefits for the region.
“Ecological disaster” and “magical thinking”
The Worse than coal storyline gained prominence following a BBC Panorama documentary that shed light on Drax's supply chain. This narrative was featured in 34 articles, primarily in national newspapers. Environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other critics, despite having limited evidence, argue that biomass combustion yields comparable CO2 emissions to coal. They contend that the carbon released may not be effectively reabsorbed through tree replanting and that emissions from the supply chain further contribute to the carbon footprint. Additionally, 32 articles framed BECCS as an Environmental disaster, expressing concerns about the land-use requirements and their potential impacts on wildlife and food production.
Contrary to the Revolutionary technology narrative, 23 articles in national newspapers (17 in the Guardian) presented the perspective that BECCS was No silver bullet. Critics described it as "too good to be true" and questioned its feasibility on the envisioned scale and within the projected timeline. An additional 10 articles in the Guardian and Independent, primarily attributed to NGOs, suggested that BECCS was a Distraction, portraying it as a means to justify continued emissions.
Caspar Donnison remarks, "The UK government is relying on BECCS to help fulfill their net-zero strategy, but the battle for public opinion is far from won." He adds that their research indicates that a targeted and limited deployment of BECCS, utilizing sustainably sourced biomass, could garner broad national support. However, if public concerns are not addressed, the government will have to explore a dwindling range of alternative technological and policy options.
A net-zero storyline for success? News media analysis of the social legitimacy of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in the United Kingdom is published in Energy Research & Social Science.
RSS