In this study, 995 respondents in a representative sample of the Dutch general population are set in the situation of policymakers: they are faced with the issue of fulfilling the Dutch demand for energy in 2030 in such a way that emissions of carbon dioxide will be reduced by 50%. In the Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) that was developed for this, respondents evaluated information from experts on seven options for CO ₂ emission reduction and their consequences. Two CCS options were compared to two energy efficiency options, a wind energy option, a biomass energy option, and a nuclear energy option. Results show that people are not that enthusiastic regarding the two CCS options. These are evaluated 5.3 and 5.9 on average on a scale of 1-10 and not often chosen as one of the three preferred options, but they are also rarely rejected. Most of the other options in the questionnaire were evaluated rather positively, except nuclear energy and the more ambitious efficiency option. Analysis shows that the evaluation of the information regarding consequences moderately influences how options are evaluated overall. The results further indicate that the CCS options are evaluated less positively due to the comparison with other options.

@en

In this study, an Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) was used to find out how a representative sample of the Dutch public (n =971) would evaluate and choose between seven mitigation options after having been thoroughly informed. The results suggest that due to the comparison with other mitigation options, people are less positive about CCS options. Still, only few respondents firmly reject the CCS options.@en