English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
 
 
DownloadE-Mail
  Is bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) feasible? The contested authority of integrated assessment modeling

Low, S., Schäfer, S. (2020): Is bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) feasible? The contested authority of integrated assessment modeling. - Energy Research and Social Science, 60, 101326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101326

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
4953906.pdf (Publisher version), 472KB
Name:
4953906.pdf
Description:
Fulltext
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Low, Sean1, Author              
Schäfer, Stefan1, Author              
Affiliations:
1IASS Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies Potsdam, ou_96022              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: Feasibility; bioenergy carbon capture and storage; integrated assessment modeling; scientific assessment; boundary work; authority
 Abstract: How are novel energy, technology, and land-use systems strategies for limiting climate change judged to be ‘feasible’? Controversy has arisen around the research community behind integrated assessment modeling (IAM) scenarios used in the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This regards the role played by an unproven component in projected energy systems—a coupling of bioenergy generation with carbon capture and storage techniques (BECCS)—that allows IAMs to achieve ambitious temperature targets since adopted by the Paris Agreement. We engage members of the IAM community and a multidisciplinary range of critical experts to interrogate how the ‘feasibility’ of BECCS—or other novel technologies—is assessed within modeling, and use ‘boundary work’ to show how the kind of expertise—and by extension, the authority—held by the IAM community is being challenged. We find that the competing judgments of BECCS's feasibility, between the IAM community and its critics, reflect and reinforce different understandings of the freedom of scientific inquiry, the mutual influences of science and policy, the shape of science communication, and the necessity of reform. We ask what these claims signal for future activity in this space, and conclude with a call for ‘reflexive’ modeling approaches to bridge perspectives.

Details

show
hide
Language(s): eng - English
 Dates: 2020-012020
 Publication Status: Finally published
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: -
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Energy Research and Social Science
Source Genre: Journal, E14, SSCI, Scopus
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: Amsterdam : Elsevier B.V.
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 60 Sequence Number: 101326 Start / End Page: - Identifier: CoNE: https://publications.rifs-potsdam.de/cone/journals/resource/20160222