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

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.

[1]  Norman Kaplan,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1974 .

[2]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: scenario matrix architecture , 2014, Climatic Change.

[3]  P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? , 1991 .

[4]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. , 1972 .

[5]  Johan Lilliestam,et al.  How modelers construct energy costs: Discursive elements in Energy System and Integrated Assessment Models , 2019, Energy Research & Social Science.

[6]  M. Fridahl Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage : From global potentials to domestic realities , 2018 .

[7]  E. Stehfest,et al.  RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C , 2011 .

[8]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[9]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Betting on negative emissions , 2014 .

[10]  Jessica Jewell,et al.  Debating the bedrock of climate-change mitigation scenarios , 2019, Nature.

[11]  William F. Lamb,et al.  Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects , 2018 .

[12]  Marisa Beck,et al.  Telling stories with models and making policy with stories: an exploration , 2018 .

[13]  Felix Creutzig,et al.  Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis , 2018 .

[14]  Arnim Wiek,et al.  Participatory methods of integrated assessment—a review , 2010 .

[15]  Alain Nadaï,et al.  Organising Policy-Relevant Knowledge for Climate Action , 2019 .

[16]  S. Shackley,et al.  Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority , 1996 .

[17]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions , 2016 .

[18]  Oliver Geden,et al.  Renegotiating the global climate stabilization target , 2014 .

[19]  S. Beck,et al.  The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience , 2018, Global Sustainability.

[20]  Anders Hansson,et al.  From polarization to reluctant acceptance–bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate , 2019, Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences.

[21]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Technical analysis of IIASA energy scenarios , 1984, Nature.

[22]  G. Peters,et al.  The trouble with negative emissions , 2016, Science.

[23]  S. Jasanoff States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order , 2004 .

[24]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[25]  M. Callon Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay , 1984 .

[26]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy , 2010 .

[27]  Lukas H. Meyer,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[28]  O. Geden Politically informed advice for climate action , 2018, Nature Geoscience.

[29]  M. Paterson,et al.  Narrowing the Climate Field: The Symbolic Power of Authors in the IPCC's Assessment of Mitigation , 2017 .

[30]  Duncan McLaren,et al.  Whose climate and whose ethics? Conceptions of justice in solar geoengineering modelling , 2018, Energy Research & Social Science.

[31]  S. Jasanoff Genealogies of STS , 2012 .

[32]  O. Geden The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking , 2016 .

[33]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios , 2016, Sustainability Science.

[34]  Christopher B. Field,et al.  The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups , 2011 .

[35]  T. Krueger,et al.  The epistemic, ethical, and political dimensions of uncertainty in integrated assessment modeling , 2016 .

[36]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments , 2015 .

[37]  T. Gieryn Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional , 1983 .

[38]  Pete Smith,et al.  A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS , 2019, Energies.

[39]  Mike Hulme,et al.  Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC? , 2010 .

[40]  B. Wynne,et al.  One world or two? Science–policy interactions in the climate field , 2018 .

[41]  Mike Hulme,et al.  1.5 [deg]C and climate research after the Paris Agreement , 2016 .

[42]  Massimo Tavoni,et al.  Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions , 2013, Climatic Change.

[43]  G. Peters,et al.  Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union , 2018, Climate Policy.

[44]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology , 1989 .

[45]  Kevin Anderson,et al.  Duality in climate science , 2015 .