From polarization to reluctant acceptance–bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate

References

• Anderson K, Peters G. 2016. The trouble with negative emissions. Science. 354:182–183.
   Google Scholar
• Anshelm J, Hansson A. 2014a. Battling promethean dreams and trojan horses: revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2:135–144.
   Google Scholar
• Anshelm J, Hansson A. 2014b. The last chance to save the planet? an analysis of the geoengineering advocacy discourse in the public debate. Environ Humanities. 5:101–123.
   Google Scholar
• Anshelm J, Hansson A. 2016. Has the grand idea of geoengineering as plan B run out of steam? Anthropocene Rev. 3:64–74.
   Google Scholar
• Anshelm J, Hultman M. 2015. Discourses of global climate change: apocalyptic framing and political antagonisms. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Asayama S. 2015. Catastrophism toward ‘opening up’ or ‘closing down’? Going beyond the apocalyptic future and geoengineering. Curr Sociology. 63:89–93.
   Google Scholar
• Asayama S, Ishi A. 2014. Reconstruction of the boundary between climate science and politics: the IPCC in the Japanese mass media, 1988–2007. Public Underst Sci. 23:189–203.
   Google Scholar
• Azar C, Lindgren K, Larson E, Möllersten K. 2006. Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass – costs and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere. Clim Change. 74:47–79.
   Google Scholar
• Beck S, Mahony M. 2017. IPCC and the politics of anticipation. Nat Clim Chang. 7:311–313.
   Google Scholar
• BEIS, 2018. Clean growth: the UK carbon capture usage and storage deployment pathway. An action plan. London: UK Government, Department for business, energy and industrial strategy.
   Google Scholar
• Bensaude-Vincent B. 2016. Building multidisciplinary research fields: the cases of materials science, nanotechnology and synthetic biology. In: Merz M, Sormani P, editors. The local configuration of new research fields, sociology of the sciences yearbook. Vol. 29. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing; p. 45–60.
   Google Scholar
• Berkhout F. 2010. Reconstructing boundaries and reason in the climate debate. Global Environ Change. 20:565–569.
   Google Scholar
• Boettcher M, Schäfer S. 2017. Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research: introduction to the Crutzen + 10 special issue. Earth’s Future. 5:266–277.
   Google Scholar
• Boykoff M,T. 2013. Public enemy no. 1? Understanding media representations of outlier views on climate change. Am Behav Sci. 57:6.
   Google Scholar
• Bray D, von Storch H. 1999. Climate science: an empirical example of postnormal science. Bull Amer Meteor Soc. 80:439–455.
   Google Scholar
• Craye M. 2006. Reflexively dealing with uncertainty and complexity in policyrelated knowledge. In: Pereira A,G, Vaz S,G, Tognetti S, editors. Interfaces between science and society. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing; p. 54–63.
   Google Scholar
• EASAC. 2018. Negative emission technologies: what role in meeting Paris agreement targets? EASAC policy report 35. Halle: The European Academies’ Science Advisory Council Secretariat.
   Google Scholar
• Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Barker T, Baumstark L, Bellevrat E, Chateau B, van Vuuren DP. 2010. The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energ J. 73:11–48.
   Google Scholar
• Etkin D, Ho E. 2007. Climate change: perceptions and discourses of risk. J Risk Res. 10:623–641.
   Google Scholar
• Figueres C, Schellnhuber HJ, Whiteman G, Rockström J, Hobley A, Rahmstorf S. 2017. Three years to safeguard our climate. Nature. 546:593–595.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz S,O, Ravetz JR. 1992. The emergence of post-normal science. In: von Schomberg R, editor. Science, politics and morality. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; p. 85–123.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz S,O, Ravetz J,R. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures. 25:739–755.
   Google Scholar
• Guillemot H. 2014. Les désaccords sur le changement climatique en France: au-delà d’un climat bipolaire. Nat Sci Sociétés. 22:340–350.
   Google Scholar
• Guillemot H. 2017. The necessary and inaccessible 1.5°C objective: a turning point in the relations between climate science and politics?. In: Aykut SC, Foyer J, Morena E, editors. Globalising the climate: COP21 and the climatisation of global debates. Abingdon: Routledge; p. 39–57.
   Google Scholar
• Haikola S, Hansson A, Fridahl M. 2018. Views on BECCS among modelers and policymakers. In: Fridahl M, editor. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: from global potentials to domestic realities. Brussels/Stockholm: European Liberal Forum and Fores; p. 17–31.
   Google Scholar
• Hickman L. 2016. The history of BECCS. Carbon Brief. 16 April 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Hulme M. 2007. The appliance of science. The Guardian. [ accessed 14 March 2007]. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2018a. Strengthening and implementing the global response.. In: de Coninck, H, et al., editor. Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2018b. Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Glossary. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/
   Google Scholar
• Lehtveer M. 2018. BECCS in climate scenarios. In: Fridahl M, editor. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: from global potentials to domestic realities. Brussels: European liberal forum.
   Google Scholar
• Livingstone J. 2018. Climate science for policy? The knowledge politics of the IPCC after copenhagen [Ph.D thesis]. Lund: Lund University.
   Google Scholar
• Loukkanen M, Huttunen S, Hildén M. 2013. Geoengineering, newsmedia and metaphors: framing the controversial. Public Underst Sci. 23:966–981.
   Google Scholar
• Mortensen G, Erlström M, Nordström S, Nyberg J. 2017. Geologisk lagring av koldioxid i Sverige – lägesbeskrivning avseende förutsättningar, lagstiftning och forskning samt olje- och gasverksamhet i Östersjöregionen. Sveriges geologiska undersökning, Rapporter och meddelanden 142. Uppsala: Elanders Sverige AB.
   Google Scholar
• Nehrlich B, Jaspal R. 2012. Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol. 131:147–227.
   Google Scholar
• Porter K,E, Hulme M. 2013. The emergence of the geoengineering debate in the UK print media: a frame analysis. Geogr J. 342:355–364.
   Google Scholar
• Ravetz J,R. 2010. Latest thoughts on post-normal science. In: Bogner A, Kastenhofer K, Torgersen H, editors. Inter- und Transdisziplinarität im Wandel? Neue Perspektiven auf problemorientierte Forschung und Politikberatung. Baden Baden: Nomos; p. 231–246.
   Google Scholar
• Saloranta T,M. 2001. Post-normal science and the global climate change issue. Clim Change. 50:395–404.
   Google Scholar
• Scholte S, Vasileiadou E, Petersen A,C. 2013. Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing. J Integr Environ Sci. 1:10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish government. 2018. Kompletterande åtgärder för att nå negativa utsläpp av växthusgaser. Kommittédirektiv. 2018:70.
   Google Scholar
• Turnpenny J, Jones M, Lorenzoni I. 2011. Where now for post-normal science? A critical review of its development, definitions, and uses. Sci Technol Hum Val. 36:287–306.
   Google Scholar
• van der Sluijs J,P. 2012. Uncertainty and dissent in climate risk assessment: a post-normal perspective. Nature and Culture. 7:174–195.
   Google Scholar
• van der Slujis J. 2010. Beyond consensus: reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science. Curr Opin Env Sust. 2:409–415.
   Google Scholar