The IPCC and the new map of science and politics

In this study, we review work which seeks to understand and interpret the place of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) within the science and politics of climate change in the context of a post‐Paris polycentric governance regime and the culture of “post‐truth” politics. Focusing on studies of how the IPCC has sought to maintain a boundary between the scientific and the political, we offer an historical account of “boundary work” within the IPCC which is instructive for thinking, in an anticipative mode, about emerging and likely challenges to the IPCC's position as a science–policy boundary organization. We suggest that the relationships between climate science and policy are undergoing fundamental transformation in light of the Paris Agreement, and contend that the IPCC will need to be nimble and reflexive in meeting new challenges. Growing calls for more “solution‐oriented” assessment question the IPCC's positioning at the science—politics boundary, where it can function to put some policy options on the table, while obscuring others. Recent controversies over proposed mitigation solutions are indicative of likely future challenges. We suggest that by adopting a mode of “responsible assessment,” the IPCC can continue to exercise its world‐making power in a relevant and legitimate fashion. This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making

[1]  Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement , 2017, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.

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

[3]  Gary W. Yohe,et al.  Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the intergovernmental panel on climate change—an introductory essay , 2011 .

[4]  Rolf Lidskog,et al.  Boundary organizations and environmental governance : Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development , 2017 .

[5]  S. Beck,et al.  The challenges of building cosmopolitan climate expertise: the case of Germany , 2012 .

[6]  Noam Obermeister,et al.  From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments , 2017 .

[7]  The intergovernmental panal on climate change: consensual knowledge and global politics , 1997 .

[8]  Cathleen Fogel Biotic Carbon Sequestration and the Kyoto Protocol: The Construction of Global Knowledge by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2005 .

[9]  Gregor Betz,et al.  In defence of the value free ideal , 2013 .

[10]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed , 2017 .

[11]  M. Hajer A media storm in the world risk society: enacting scientific authority in the IPCC controversy (2009–10) , 2012 .

[12]  John Robinson,et al.  Relevant But Not Prescriptive , 2004 .

[13]  Self-Governance and Peer Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report , 2001 .

[14]  Raffael Himmelsbach How scientists advising the European Commission on research priorities view climate engineering proposals , 2018 .

[15]  Christopher B. Field,et al.  Mapping the climate change challenge , 2016 .

[16]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity , 1993 .

[17]  Maarten A. Hajer,et al.  Authoritative Governance: Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization , 2009 .

[18]  S. Beck Between Tribalism and Trust: The IPCC Under the "Public Microscope" , 2012 .

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

[20]  Epistemic Subsidiarity – Coexistence, Cosmopolitanism, Constitutionalism , 2013, European Journal of Risk Regulation.

[21]  M. Mahony Boundary spaces: Science, politics and the epistemic geographies of climate change in Copenhagen, 2009 , 2013 .

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

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

[25]  R. Lidskog,et al.  When Does Science Matter? International Relations Meets Science and Technology Studies , 2015, Global Environmental Politics.

[26]  R. Hoppe Lost in translation? Boundary work in making climate change governable , 2010 .

[27]  F. Biermann Whose experts? The role of geographic representation in global environmental assessments. , 2006 .

[28]  S. Rahmstorf,et al.  Three years to safeguard our climate , 2017, Nature.

[29]  D. Victor,et al.  The Regime Complex for Climate Change , 2010, Perspectives on Politics.

[30]  V. Meulen,et al.  The Politics of Scientific Advice: European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) , 2011 .

[31]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Cosmopolitan Knowledge: Climate Science and Global Civic Epistemology , 2011 .

[32]  H. Hughes Bourdieu and the IPCC’s Symbolic Power , 2015, Global Environmental Politics.

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

[34]  J. Montana Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: Achieving closure through typologies in IPBES , 2017 .

[35]  Post-truth? , 2017, Social studies of science.

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

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

[38]  A. Elzinga The science-society contract in historical transformation: with special reference to “epistemic drift” , 1997 .

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

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

[41]  The treatment of divergent viewpoints in global environmental assessments , 2017 .

[42]  Oliver Geden,et al.  Define limits for temperature overshoot targets , 2017, Nature Geoscience.

[43]  Mike Hulme,et al.  Epistemic geographies of climate change , 2018 .

[44]  D. Winickoff,et al.  The problem of epistemic jurisdiction in global governance: The case of sustainability standards for biofuels , 2017, Social studies of science.

[45]  Amy Dahan-Dalmédico Climate expertise: between scientific credibility and geopolitical imperatives , 2008 .

[46]  R. Lidskog,et al.  Stakeholder Engagement in the Making: IPBES Legitimization Politics , 2017, Global Environmental Politics.

[47]  E. Parson,et al.  Opinion: Climate policymakers and assessments must get serious about climate engineering , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[48]  W. Pearce,et al.  Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus , 2015 .

[49]  Carolien Kroeze,et al.  Moving boundaries in transboundary air pollution; co-production of science and policy under the convention on long range transboundary air pollution , 2006 .

[50]  Alfred Moore,et al.  Should We Aim for Consensus? , 2010, Episteme.

[51]  F. Biermann,et al.  The authority of science in sustainability governance: A structured comparison of six science institutions engaged with the Sustainable Development Goals , 2017 .

[52]  S. Beck,et al.  The IPCC and the politics of anticipation , 2017 .

[53]  K. Abbott The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change , 2012 .

[54]  M. Zürn From constitutional rule to loosely coupled spheres of liquid authority: a reflexive approach , 2017, International Theory.

[55]  Göran Sundqvist,et al.  Formalization and separation: A systematic basis for interpreting approaches to summarizing science for climate policy , 2015, Social studies of science.

[56]  M. Lynch STS, symmetry and post-truth , 2017, Social studies of science.

[57]  Eva Lövbrand,et al.  In pursuit of carbon accountability: the politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems , 2012 .

[58]  Esteve Corbera,et al.  Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report , 2016 .

[59]  Stefan C. Aykut,et al.  Globalising the Climate : COP21 and the climatisation of global debates , 2017 .

[60]  Peter Pelzer,et al.  2050—An Energetic Odyssey: Understanding ‘Techniques of Futuring’ in the transition towards renewable energy , 2018, Energy Research & Social Science.

[61]  M. Fridahl,et al.  Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage , 2017 .

[62]  Sujatha Raman,et al.  Science advice for global challenges: learning from trade-offs in the IPCC , 2018 .

[63]  D. Lindenmayer Merchants of Doubt. How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming , 2012 .

[64]  E. Ostrom Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems , 2010, American Economic Review.

[65]  D. Guston Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction , 2001 .

[66]  T. Skodvin Revised Rules of Procedure for the IPCC Process , 2000 .

[67]  Mike Hulme,et al.  Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between Mother Earth and ecosystem services , 2015 .

[68]  M. Kearnes,et al.  Remaking participation : science, environment and emergent publics , 2016 .

[69]  Climate change and the geographies of objectivity: the case of the IPCC's burning embers diagram , 2015 .

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

[71]  Tora Skodvin,et al.  Structure and agent in the scientific diplomacy of climate change : an empirical case study of science-policy interaction in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2000 .

[72]  Q. Schiermeier,et al.  Four challenges facing newly elected climate chief , 2015, Nature.

[73]  Experiment earth: responsible innovation in geoengineering , 2016 .

[74]  Stephan Lewandowsky,et al.  Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community , 2015 .

[75]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  No funeral bells: Public reason in a ‘post-truth’ age , 2017, Social studies of science.

[76]  Ingrid J. Visseren-Hamakers,et al.  Envisioning REDD+ in a post‐Paris era: between evolving expectations and current practice , 2017 .

[77]  Mike Hulme,et al.  Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. , 2010 .

[78]  Arthur Petersen,et al.  Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC , 2009 .

[79]  Christopher B. Field,et al.  Unleashing expert judgment in assessment , 2017 .

[80]  S. Shackley,et al.  IPCC gazing and the interpretative social sciences: A comment on Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's: ‘Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice’ , 1995 .

[81]  Yulia Yamineva,et al.  Lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on inclusiveness across geographies and stakeholders , 2017 .

[82]  N. Oreskes How earth science has become a social science , 2015 .

[83]  D. Victor Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy , 2015, Nature.

[84]  B. Laurent Political experiments that matter: Ordering democracy from experimental sites , 2016, Social studies of science.

[85]  S. Bremer,et al.  Co‐production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives , 2017 .

[86]  D. Barben Changing regimes of science and politics: Comparative and transnational perspectives for a world in transition , 2007 .

[87]  R. Merton The Normative Structure of Science , 1973 .

[88]  Jack Stilgoe,et al.  Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation In Geoengineering , 2015 .

[89]  M. Hilden,et al.  The challenges of monitoring national climate policy: learning lessons from the EU , 2018 .

[90]  Angela Oels,et al.  Rendering climate change governable: From biopower to advanced liberal government? , 2005 .

[91]  B. Wynne Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out? , 2002 .

[92]  L. Luton Climate Scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Evolving Dynamics of a Belief in Political Neutrality , 2015 .

[93]  N. Vaughan,et al.  Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[94]  Aarti Gupta,et al.  Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity , 2018, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.

[95]  S. Beck Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation , 2011 .

[96]  J. Vervoort,et al.  Anticipating climate futures in a 1.5 °C era: the link between foresight and governance , 2018 .

[97]  Adora M. Alvarez,et al.  Introduction , 2018, Theoretical and Experimental Chemistry.

[98]  Stefan C. Aykut Taking a wider view on climate governance: moving beyond the ‘iceberg,’ the ‘elephant,’ and the ‘forest’ , 2016 .

[99]  R. Eckersley Moving Forward in the Climate Negotiations: Multilateralism or Minilateralism? , 2012, Global Environmental Politics.

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

[101]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  The Limits of Consensus , 2007, Science.

[102]  Hélène Guillemot The necessary and inaccessible 1.5°C objective : A turning point in the relations between climate science and politics? , 2017 .

[103]  Holly Jean Buck,et al.  Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications , 2016, Climatic Change.

[104]  M. Lang,et al.  Rethinking IPCC Expertise from a Multi-actor Perspective , 2018 .

[105]  Naomi Oreskes,et al.  The rapid disintegration of projections: The West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2012, Social studies of science.

[106]  R. Eckersley Geopolitan Democracy in the Anthropocene , 2017 .

[107]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  INEA editorial: Achieving 1.5 °C and climate justice , 2018, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.

[108]  Clark A. Miller Hybrid Management: Boundary Organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance in the Climate Regime , 2001 .

[109]  M. Hulme,et al.  Modelling and the Nation: Institutionalising Climate Prediction in the UK, 1988–92 , 2016, Minerva.

[110]  Institutional Accountability of Nonstate Actors in the UNFCCC: Exit, Voice, and Loyalty , 2017 .

[111]  B. Siebenhüner The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments—the case of the IPCC , 2003 .

[112]  W. Clark,et al.  Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[114]  A. Stirling “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” , 2008 .

[115]  Science as a “fixed point”? Quantification and boundary objects in international climate politics , 2017 .

[116]  S. Boehmer-Christiansen Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice: Part 1 , 1994 .

[117]  David Demeritt,et al.  The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science , 2001 .

[118]  M. Kandlikar,et al.  Who participates in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and why: A quantitative assessment of the national representation of authors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2011 .

[119]  R. Grundmann Climate change and knowledge politics , 2007 .

[120]  Bentley B. Allan Producing the Climate: States, Scientists, and the Constitution of Global Governance Objects , 2016, International Organization.

[121]  Nondemarcated Spaces of Knowledge‐Informed Policy Making: How Useful Is the Concept of Boundary Organization in IR? , 2017 .

[122]  J. Morin,et al.  Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES , 2017 .

[123]  Shardul Agrawala,et al.  Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 1998 .

[124]  Cerian Gibbes,et al.  Local knowledge in climate adaptation research: moving knowledge frameworks from extraction to co‐production , 2017 .

[125]  William F. Lamb,et al.  Fast growing research on negative emissions , 2017 .

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

[127]  P. Haas The epistemic authority of solution-oriented global environmental assessments , 2017 .

[128]  Danièle Revel,et al.  The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change , 2011 .

[129]  Hoesung Lee,et al.  Turning the focus to solutions , 2015, Science.

[130]  Rose Cairns,et al.  Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change , 2013 .

[131]  G. Luderer,et al.  Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C , 2015 .

[132]  S. Randalls History of the 2°C climate target , 2010 .

[133]  F. Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming , 2010 .

[134]  R. Moss The IPCC: policy relevant (not driven) scientific assessment , 1995 .

[135]  S. Rayner What might Evans‐Pritchard have made of two degrees? , 2016 .

[136]  Yola Georgiadou,et al.  Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science - policy interface , 2013 .

[137]  Art Dewulf,et al.  What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity , 2016 .

[138]  James D. Ford,et al.  Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports , 2016 .

[139]  D. Jamieson,et al.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities , 2017 .

[140]  T. Forsyth Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science , 2002 .

[141]  Carol Morris,et al.  Cultural spaces of climate , 2012, Climatic Change.

[142]  J. Jabbour,et al.  Solution-oriented global environmental assessments: Opportunities and challenges , 2017 .

[143]  P. Haas Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination , 1992, International Organization.

[144]  Shardul Agrawala,et al.  Climate change. The limits of consensus. , 2007, Science.

[145]  Aarti Gupta,et al.  De facto governance: how authoritative assessments construct climate engineering as an object of governance , 2019 .