This report provides the most up‑to‑date overview of public awareness and social acceptance of CM technologies in Poland. It can therefore be treated, on the one hand, as a research document aiming to describe the issue as comprehensively as possible, and on the other hand, as a practical guide for all stakeholders involved in CM deployment in Poland—social, local‑government, and business actors alike.
This report presents the latest snapshot of public awareness and social acceptance of carbon management (CM) technologies in Poland, combining quantitative survey data with qualitative insights from focus groups and industry interviews. Overall, a majority of respondents recognise climate change as a serious issue, yet a large share report limited knowledge about CM: two thirds say they do not know what to expect from CM deployment, while a smaller proportion claim substantive familiarity. The survey shows clear public preference for carbon utilisation (CCU) and for products made with captured CO₂, whereas direct air capture (DAC) and large‑scale geological storage (CCS) evoke more mixed reactions. Notably, declared familiarity with the general term “carbon management” appears higher than with the more technical label “carbon capture and storage,” suggesting potential
confusion driven by terminology rather than deeper understanding.
Qualitative work with young people revealed unexpected ambivalence and scepticism. Focus groups with students and school‑age participants showed that younger cohorts more often express indifference or uncertainty about CM, even as some are engaged in sustainability activities. Their concerns centred on greenwashing, the risk that capture technologies would prolong fossil‑fuel use, the high costs of CM, and safety issues related to underground storage. These attitudes were reinforced by distrust of authorities and investors and by a demand that information be delivered by independent, non‑investor‑affiliated sources. Participants repeatedly emphasised the value of seeing functioning pilot projects and of clear, visual explanations of how capture and storage work.
Interviews with industry representatives from the lime and cement sectors painted a pragmatic picture: CCS is viewed as essential to close the gap left by process emissions and to enable deep decarbonisation, while CCU is seen as promising but constrained by demand and purity standards. DAC was judged largely impractical at scale today because of its high energy requirements and costs. Industry interlocutors identified two principal barriers to deployment: legislative and financial. They pointed to gaps in Polish regulation (notably the absence of clear siting rules and delays in updating mining and geological law), the lack of demand‑pull instruments and carbon contracts for difference, and insufficient transport and storage infrastructure. High capital costs and uncertainty over EU ETS prices further deter investment.
Regional patterns in the survey suggest that local context and recent announcements matter. Some voivodeships showed unexpectedly high acceptance—most strikingly Świętokrzyskie, where a recent announcement of a DAC project in Kielce likely amplified local support. This “novelty effect” implies that visible pilot projects and early demonstrations can materially increase local acceptance and understanding, reinforcing the value of demonstrators as part of a broader engagement strategy.
From these findings follow practical implications for policymakers, industry and communicators. First, public outreach must be independent, transparent and visually oriented, addressing landscape, safety and economic concerns while explaining the role of CM within a broader decarbonisation pathway. Second, policy action is urgent: clear siting regulations, support instruments for demand and investment (including CCfDs), and decisions on transport and storage infrastructure are prerequisites for unlocking private investment. Third, local benefits should be explicit and tangible—direct payments, job retention, preferential access to low‑carbon fuels or infrastructure investments can help build local buy‑in. Finally, pilot projects and demonstrators should be prioritised and accompanied by targeted education and stakeholder dialogue to convert abstract concepts into observable, trust‑building realities.
In sum, CM technologies have a credible role in Poland’s decarbonisation mix, particularly for hard‑to‑abate industrial emissions, but their social licence will depend on faster, clearer policy action, independent communication, demonstrable local benefits and carefully designed engagement with communities—especially younger cohorts whose attitudes are currently ambivalent yet pivotal for long‑term acceptance.
