Carbon capture and sequestration : the portrayal of risks in newspaper media in Finland and Norway

Carbon capture and storage may become an inevitable means in mitigating climate change. However, it is a new technology involving a great deal of uncertainties. It is of utmost importance to understand on one hand, the risks caused by the technology and on the other, what is holding it back. This way unforeseen setbacks and environmental or other damage could be avoided. This thesis is a part of a wider research project on the risk governance of carbon dioxide capture and storage (RICCS). The present study gives additional insights to CCS risk analysis by diving into the stories that the media tells about the risks. I analyze the media coverage on the risks of CCS in the most wide spread newspapers of Norway and Finland with the aim of identifying what kind of risk framings are portrayed by the media; how strong is the presence of uncertainties and what kind of uncertainties are brought up. The media is seen as a mirror of public perception, but also one of the players influencing it. The possible effects that the analyzed articles could have on public perception of risks are discussed. The theoretical framework consists of theories of systemic risks, narrative policy analysis and framing of environmental risks in the media. I describe the nature of systemic risks. Then I move on to framing, more specifically how environmental risks are framed in the media and how it can effect public perception. After this I explain how narrative analysis can be used as a tool for identifying framings. Then I describe Klinke and Renn's Prometheus theory that I will use for analyzing the level of uncertainty in the framing of the articles and for discussing the implications of my findings. The results show that the risks caused by CCS are mainly the lock-in in fossil fuels, it's possible negative effect on developing renewable energy and environmental and health risks in general. The risks towards successful CCS seem to be mainly connected to funding, which connects to emissions' prices, the climate agreement and viability of investments. The differences between the two countries are quite related to the situation in which each country is in terms of CCS development. Norway is very active and pushing CCS forward. Consequently, the Norwegian articles are generally not very critical of the technology itself, but discuss what is holding it back. Generally, the Finnish articles bring out more aspects on the issue, both positive and negative, leaving quite an ambiguous image to the reader. The implications of my findings for future policy practices are quite extensive and therefore not very useful, since most policy recommendations seem more or less relevant. What is interesting though, is that based on my findings I could identify the turning points in which public perception is most relevant. These are: What kind of energy production is supported? Is CCS an acceptable mitigation means? Is the risk of leakage taken as severe? These issues represent turning points for the future of CCS technology and deliberative processes can be crucial when discussing them.