1. Diana-Maria Cismaru,
Associate Professor, PhD,
NUPSPA Bucharest

2. Fenco ERA-NET Research
“Scrutinizing the impact of CCS communication on the
general and local public”
The CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies
are designed to decrease the level of industrial CO2
emissions, having an important effect in decreasing
global warming.
The project tested the public acceptance of CCS
technologies in six European countries (Germany,
Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, Greece and
Romania).
Some of the countries (as Germany and Netherlands)
were advanced in the development of the new
technologies, while others were at a beginning.

3. Methods
A. The qualitative research: Focus groups versus ICQ
groups (3 groups with 12 participants each, matched
groups);
Objective: to compare means for shaping a stable
opinion and for disseminating information to publics
B.The quantitative research : Representative survey at a
national level
Objective: to identify the best channels of information
and the availability to accept innovation in the field
of reducing global warming

4. The focus groups and ICQ groups results for
Romania
When comparing the effectiveness of the two
methods of communication, oral presentation of an
expert followed by group debate was in advantage for
Romanians.
The self-reported awareness to form an opinion on
technologies was slightly better in focus groups.
Participants reported fewer difficulties in forming an
opinion, a greater certainty and sufficient
information.

5. Representative survey results in Romania (I)
The poll at the national level showed a fine level of
information about pollution and global warming
effect, but almost no information on capture carbon
and storage technologies at a majority of the
Romanians (75% never heard about carbon capture
and storage, only 2,9% had more information)

6. Representative survey results in Romania
(II): the hierarchy of problems

7. Preferences for different types of energy
solar
wind
water plants
biomass
coal
gas
nuclear
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%

8. The influence of source testing
Four scenarios tested about CCS:
Negative with a source (Greenpeace);
Negative without a source;
Positive with a source (Shell);
Positive without a source.

9. Change in acceptance when introducing
source and negative/positive message

10. Comparison with the other five countries
Level of information on CCS: lower than Norway and
Netherlands, higher than Greece, comparable with
United Kingdom;
Level of acceptance of CCS: UK, Norway and
Netherlands are neutral, Germany are sceptical,
Romania and Greece are enthusiastic;
Romania’s particular reaction: a positive change in
attitude even in the case of a negative presentation
(with or without a source); (explanation: the low level
of social trust).

11. Conclusions
• The best method for introducing industrial
innovation would probably be public events, followed
by expert presentations;
• The large acceptance of innovations without
information shows a lack of maturity in Romanian
publics ;
• In promoting innovation, the most important factor
in creating public acceptance is not the importance
and credibility of the source, but the accessibility of
the information .