从两极分化到不情愿的接受——生物能源与碳捕获和储存(BECCS)以及气候辩论的后正常化

IF 2.6 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Simon Haikola, A. Hansson, Jonas Anshelm
{"title":"从两极分化到不情愿的接受——生物能源与碳捕获和储存(BECCS)以及气候辩论的后正常化","authors":"Simon Haikola, A. Hansson, Jonas Anshelm","doi":"10.1080/1943815X.2019.1579740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper covers the public debate on BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) between 2008 and 2018. Through a qualitative analysis of around 800 feature articles, editorials, and opinion pieces published in English, German, Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian in news media and debates sections of scientific media, we highlight conspicuous aspects of the debate and relate them to the theoretical concept of post-normal science. We find that the debate is characterized by an emphasis on values, scientific uncertainty and the integrity of science, premised on a pervading sense of urgency. To a significant extent, the debate can be understood as a “normal” view of science questioning what it perceives to be unscientific model-based climate scenarios, and the scenarios, in turn, can be seen as a response to post-normal circumstances. The urgency permeating the debate provides conditions for open debate about ethical and epistemological uncertainty. The debate goes through a period of polarization – corroborating findings from previous studies on the climate science debate after COP21 – between an intense critique of BECCS inclusion in climate scenarios and reluctant acceptance thereof. Towards the end of the studied period, emphasis shifts towards reluctant acceptance, indicating that post-normal debate may only occur as a temporary state always tending towards new consensus.","PeriodicalId":16194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences","volume":"140 1","pages":"45 - 69"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From polarization to reluctant acceptance–bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate\",\"authors\":\"Simon Haikola, A. Hansson, Jonas Anshelm\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1943815X.2019.1579740\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The paper covers the public debate on BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) between 2008 and 2018. Through a qualitative analysis of around 800 feature articles, editorials, and opinion pieces published in English, German, Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian in news media and debates sections of scientific media, we highlight conspicuous aspects of the debate and relate them to the theoretical concept of post-normal science. We find that the debate is characterized by an emphasis on values, scientific uncertainty and the integrity of science, premised on a pervading sense of urgency. To a significant extent, the debate can be understood as a “normal” view of science questioning what it perceives to be unscientific model-based climate scenarios, and the scenarios, in turn, can be seen as a response to post-normal circumstances. The urgency permeating the debate provides conditions for open debate about ethical and epistemological uncertainty. The debate goes through a period of polarization – corroborating findings from previous studies on the climate science debate after COP21 – between an intense critique of BECCS inclusion in climate scenarios and reluctant acceptance thereof. Towards the end of the studied period, emphasis shifts towards reluctant acceptance, indicating that post-normal debate may only occur as a temporary state always tending towards new consensus.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences\",\"volume\":\"140 1\",\"pages\":\"45 - 69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"28\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2019.1579740\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2019.1579740","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

摘要

本文涵盖了2008年至2018年间关于BECCS(具有碳捕获和储存的生物能源)的公开辩论。通过对以英语、德语、瑞典语、丹麦语和挪威语在新闻媒体和科学媒体辩论部分发表的约800篇专题文章、社论和评论文章的定性分析,我们突出了辩论的显著方面,并将它们与后常态科学的理论概念联系起来。我们发现,这场辩论的特点是强调价值观、科学的不确定性和科学的完整性,其前提是一种普遍的紧迫感。在很大程度上,这场辩论可以被理解为一种“正常”的科学观点,质疑它所认为的不科学的基于模型的气候情景,而这些情景反过来又可以被视为对后正常情况的回应。辩论的紧迫性为关于伦理和认识论不确定性的公开辩论提供了条件。关于气候变化的辩论经历了一个两极分化的时期——这证实了此前关于COP21之后气候科学辩论的研究结果——在对BECCS纳入气候情景的强烈批评和不情愿接受之间。在研究结束时,重点转向不情愿的接受,表明后常态辩论可能只是作为一种临时状态发生,总是倾向于新的共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From polarization to reluctant acceptance–bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate
ABSTRACT The paper covers the public debate on BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) between 2008 and 2018. Through a qualitative analysis of around 800 feature articles, editorials, and opinion pieces published in English, German, Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian in news media and debates sections of scientific media, we highlight conspicuous aspects of the debate and relate them to the theoretical concept of post-normal science. We find that the debate is characterized by an emphasis on values, scientific uncertainty and the integrity of science, premised on a pervading sense of urgency. To a significant extent, the debate can be understood as a “normal” view of science questioning what it perceives to be unscientific model-based climate scenarios, and the scenarios, in turn, can be seen as a response to post-normal circumstances. The urgency permeating the debate provides conditions for open debate about ethical and epistemological uncertainty. The debate goes through a period of polarization – corroborating findings from previous studies on the climate science debate after COP21 – between an intense critique of BECCS inclusion in climate scenarios and reluctant acceptance thereof. Towards the end of the studied period, emphasis shifts towards reluctant acceptance, indicating that post-normal debate may only occur as a temporary state always tending towards new consensus.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences (JIES) provides a stimulating, informative and critical forum for intellectual debate on significant environmental issues. It brings together perspectives from a wide range of disciplines and methodologies in both the social and natural sciences in an effort to develop integrative knowledge about the processes responsible for environmental change. The Journal is especially concerned with the relationships between science, society and policy and one of its key aims is to advance understanding of the theory and practice of sustainable development.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信