Front page or “buried” beneath the fold? Media coverage of carbon capture and storage

Abstract

Media can affect public views and opinions on science, policy and risk issues. This is especially true of a controversial emerging technology that is relatively unknown. The study presented here employs a media content analysis of carbon capture and storage (CCS), one potential strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The authors analyzed all mentions of CCS in two leading Canadian national newspapers and two major western regional newspapers from the first article that discussed CCS in 2004 to the end of 2009 (825 articles). An in-depth content analysis was conducted to examine factors relating to risk from CCS, how the technology was portrayed and if coverage was negatively or positively biased. We conclude by discussing the possible impact of media coverage on support or opposition to CCS adoption.

Keywords

carbon capture and storage CCS climate change energy systems framing media analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altheide

(1996) Qualitative Media Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Anderson

(2009) Media, politics and climate change: Towards a new research agenda. Sociological Compass 3(2): 166–182.

Ashworth

Boughen

Mayhew

Millar

(2010) From research to action: Now we have to move on CCS communication. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4(2): 426–433.

Bachu

(2007) CO₂ storage in geological media: Role, means, status and barriers to deployment. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34: 254–273.

Borick

Lachapelle

Rabe

(2011) Climate compared: Public opinion on climate change in the United States and Canada. Available from (accessed 16 July 2011): http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/04/climate-change-opinion

Boykoff

(2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38(6): 1190–1204.

Bradbury

Dooley

(2004) Who’s talking? What are the issues? The media’s portrayal of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration in the United States. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technology, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Chong

Druckman

(2007) A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication 57: 99–118.

Culley

Ogley-Oliver

Carton

Street

(2010) Media framing of proposed nuclear reactors: An analysis of print media. Community and Applied Social Psychology 20: 497–512.

10.

de Best-Waldhober

Daamen

Ramirez Ramirez

Faaij

Hendriks

de Visser

(2009) Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options. Energy Procedia 1(1): 4795–4802.

11.

Druckman

(2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior 23(3): 225–256.

12.

Eisensee

Strömberg

(2007) News droughts, news floods, and U.S. disaster relief. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2: 693–728.

13.

Entman

(1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.

14.

Entman

(2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

15.

Fairclough

(2003) Analyzing Discourse: Textural Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

16.

Feldpausch-Parker

Chaudhry

Stephens

Fischlein

Hall

Melnick

Peterson

Ragland

Wilson

(2011) A comparative state-level analysis of carbon capture and storage (CCS) discourse among U.S. energy stakeholders and the public. Energy Procedia 4: 6368–6375.

17.

Gamson

Modigliani

(1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. The American Journal of Sociology 95(1): 1–37.

18.

Gee

(1999) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. New York: Routledge.

19.

Goffman

(1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.

20.

Government of Alberta (2010) Oil. Available from (accessed 11 January 2011): http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OurBusiness/Oil.asp

21.

Ha-Duong

Nadaï

Campos

(2009) A survey on the public perception of CCS in France. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3(5): 633–640.

22.

Huckin

(2002) Textual silence and the discourse of homelessness. Discourse & Society 13(3): 347–372.

23.

IPCC (2005) IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage: Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24.

IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers. Available from (accessed 20 February 2009): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar_syr_spm.pdf

25.

Ipsos-Reid Corporation (2007) Public views on carbon capture and storage: Draft report. Calgary: Ipsos-Reid Corporation, ecoENERGY Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force.

26.

Jaccard

Sharp

(2009) CCS in Canada. In: Meadowcroft

Langhelle

(eds) Caching the Carbon. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, pp. 75–97.

27.

Kahneman

Tversky

(2000) Choices, Values and Frames. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

28.

Kitzinger

(1999) Researching risk and the media. Health, Risk & Society 1(1): 55–69.

29.

Kling

Clark

Wagner

Compton

Humphrey

Devine

Evans

Lockwood

Tuttle

Koenigsberg

(1987) The 1986 Lake Nyos gas disaster in Cameroon, West Africa. Science 236(4798): 169–175.

30.

MacKendrick

(2010) Media framing of body burdens: Precautionary consumption and the individualization of risk. Sociological Inquiry 80(1): 126–149.

31.

Mander

(2009) Media framing of CCS. Paper presented at the IEA GHG Social Research Network Meeting, Paris, France.

32.

Matthes

(2009) What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communication journals, 1990–2005. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 86(2): 349–367.

33.

McLeod

Detenber

(1999) Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Communication 49(3): 3–23.

34.

Miles

Morse

(2007) The role of news media in natural disaster risk and recovery. Ecological Economics 63: 365–373.

35.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

36.

Miller

Reichert

(2000) Interest group strategies and journalistic norms. In: Allan

Adam

Carter

(eds) Environmental Risks and the Media. New York: Routledge, pp. 45–54.

37.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) (2008) The ecoENERGY Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force: Report to the Alberta Minster of Energy. Available from (accessed 23 February 2009): http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/com/resoress/publications/fosfos/fosfos-eng.pdf

38.

Parson

Keith

(1998) Fossil fuels without CO₂ emissions. Science 282: 1053–1054.

39.

Riffe

Lacy

Fico

(1998) Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

40.

Scheufele

(1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49(1): 103–122.

41.

Scheufele

Tewksbury

(2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 57: 9–20.

42.

Sharp

(2005) Public Attitudes toward Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide in Canada. Simon Fraser University.

43.

Sharp

(2008) Carbon Capture and Storage: The Views of the Canadian Public. Calgary: The Pembina Institute and The University of Calgary.

44.

Snow

Rochford

Worden

Benford

(1986) Frame alignment processes, micro mobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51: 464–481.

45.

Sonnett

Morehouse

Finger

Garfin

Rattray

(2006) Drought and declining reservoirs: Comparing media discourse in Arizona and New Mexico, 2002–2004. Global Environmental Change 16: 95–113.

46.

Tierney

Bevc

Kuligowski

(2006) Metaphors matter: Disaster myths, media frames, and their consequences in Hurricane Katrina. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 604: 57–81.

47.

Tjernshaugen

Langhelle

(2009) Technology as political glue: CCS in Norway. In: Meadowcroft

Langhelle

(eds) Caching the Carbon. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, pp. 98–124.

48.

Tuchman

(1978) Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. London: Collier Macmillan.

49.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (n.d.) Full text of the Convention: Article 2. Available from (accessed 23 February 2009): http://unfccc.int/esential_background/convention/items/1353.php

50.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2010) Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its fifteenth session. Available from (accessed 13 March 2012): http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11a01.pdf

51.

Van Gorp

(2007) The constructivist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, Culture & Critique 57: 60–78.

52.

Wilson

Stephens

Rai Peterson

Fischlein

(2009) Carbon capture and storage in context: The importance of state policy and discourse in deploying emerging energy technologies. Energy Procedia 1(1): 4519–4526.

53.

Wright

Reid

(2011) Green dreams or pipe dreams? Media framing of the U.S. biofuels movement. Biomass and Bioenergy 35: 1390–1399.

54.

Young

Dugas

(2011) Representations of climate change in Canadian national print media: The banalization of global warming. Canadian Review of Sociology 48(1): 1–22.