UKCCSRC Conference 2026 – Plenary 3: People, Place and Policy (ECR Meeting Fund)

Ubong Ekanem (University of Strathclyde), Chee Lok Yong (University of Bradford), Balkan Mutlu (Teesside University Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre) and Manpreet Kaur (University of Birmingham) share their takeaways from the “Plenary 3: People, Place and Policy” session at the UKCCSRC Conference 2026.

The session examined how public trust, supportive policies and an understanding of the places and communities where projects are developed influence the deployment and long-term success of carbon capture and storage. It was chaired by Dr Jen Roberts, UKCCSRC Deputy Director, who opened by explaining why the social sciences matter for CCS. She noted that maintaining and accelerating deployment requires social dynamics, politics, economics and psychology to be taken into account. Three speakers then presented their work from different perspectives.

Diarmaid Clery (University of Manchester)

Diarmaid presented findings from his study on the social licence to operate (SLO) in principle and in practice. He described the SLO as informal, non-governmental support from stakeholders, including local communities, policymakers, regulators and developers, that a decarbonisation project needs in order to deliver. A project must first be seen as legitimate and credible to gain support, and it must ultimately build trust between stakeholders. He used the pyramid model of Thomson and Boutilier (2011) to describe this process. Crossing the legitimacy boundary earns acceptance, and crossing the credibility boundary earns approval. Psychological identification with a project becomes possible only when full trust is established. The licence is not static and can strengthen or weaken over time. He also outlined the engagement taking place on climate change and net zero industrial decarbonisation at different scales and levels, which ultimately serves to build trust and confidence.

The study found that stakeholders recognise the need for climate action and see industrial decarbonisation as an opportunity for jobs and regional renewal, while credibility depends on transparent and consistent government leadership. The public can support CCUS when it is seen to deliver climate benefits and preserve valued industry. That support depends on safety, affordability, fairness, transparency and credible regulation.

Zeynep Clulow (University of Cambridge)

Zeynep of Cambridge’s Energy Policy Research Group applied a political science based approach to stakeholder attitudes towards cluster CCS in the UK. Her talk centred on economics and social justice, asking why stakeholders feel the way they do about cluster CCS and how they justify their positions.

The starting point is the newspaper records in the UK. Coverage of cluster CCS drew a little interest around 2010 before vanishing, jumped in 2019 to 2020, then dropped gradually until 2025 and is now increasing again. The corpus runs to 276 articles, and the jumps line up with key projects starting around the early 2020s, such as HyNet, East Coast, Acorn and Viking.

The frequently recurring themes across the coverage are environment, social justice and energy security. Zeynep built these out from a word dictionary and word patterns drawn from the articles, with Yoshikoder turning that text into quantitative data. Across the corpus, the salient themes are dominated by economics, followed by feasibility, then environment, then social justice. This raises the question of what the heavy weighting towards techno-economics means for how the debate is framed.

On attitudes, Zeynep noted that an action such as protesting against the government is itself an expression of attitude, and the stakeholder attitude trends are quantitatively meaningful. The private sector spikes around 2020 as the most enthusiastic group, in line with the major projects starting, followed by government, while public and NGO themes lose momentum after 2025. Looking at correlations between themes and stakeholders, economics associates positively with the private sector. Regionalism and social justice are positively linked, so an article that uses one is likely to use the other as well. Economic themes run negatively against both government support and NGOs, meaning heavier economic framing tends to coincide with weaker support from those groups.

Zeynep closed by noting that the dataset needs expanding for better statistical power, with more focus on the key stakeholders such as the private sector, government and non-governmental parties, and more nuanced attention to specific projects.

Sandra Bogelein (Climate Change Committee)

Sandra Bogelein explained how the Climate Change Committee (CCC) – the independent body that advises government and reports to Parliament through carbon budgets, climate risk assessments and progress reports – is bringing public views into its analysis. In the CCC’s Balanced Pathway, around 60% of emissions reductions come from electrifying key technologies and decarbonising and expanding electricity supply. Households contribute around a third of the emissions reduction in 2040, and 72% of that comes from just two actions, switching to an electric vehicle and switching to a heat pump. Public engagement is therefore central to delivering the pathway.

To understand what an informed public would support, the CCC convened a citizens’ panel of 26 members of the public from Birmingham and the surrounding area, broadly reflective of the UK population, who met across seven online and face-to-face workshops. Unlike a focus group that captures initial reactions, a deliberative panel hears from experts, asks questions and works through options together. This allows in-depth exploration of challenging topics, in this case car use, home heating, what we eat and flying.

The spotlight on flying illustrated the approach. Although removals were not the main focus of the sessions, participants were less familiar with carbon removal technologies and some expressed concern. They felt removals should be a complementary measure alongside managing aviation demand. Paying for removals through taxes on all citizens was generally seen as unfair, and participants wanted airlines or those who fly to cover the costs. Low trust in airlines to manage removals led many to call for government oversight.

Closing thoughts

The three talks reinforced a common message. A social licence has to be earned and can be lost, the framing of the public debate shapes who supports CCS, and people engage seriously with difficult trade-offs when they are given the time and information to deliberate. Plenary 3 was a reminder that public trust, policy and place are central to delivering CCS at scale.