Anders Hansson

Comparing reconstructed past variations and future projections of the Baltic sea ecosystem first results from multi model ensemble simulations

Multi-model ensemble simulations for the marine biogeochemistry and food web of the Baltic Sea were performed for the period 1850‐2098, and projected changes in the future climate were compared with the past climate environment. For the past period 1850‐2006, atmospheric, hydrological and nutrient forcings were reconstructed, based on historical measurements. For the future period 1961‐2098, scenario simulations were driven by

Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions

The potential for CO2 emission reductions through carbon capture and storage (CCS) is depending on investments that can bring the technology from the current R&D through to commercial applications. The intermediate step in this development is demonstration plants that can prove the technical, economic, social, and ecological feasibility of CCS technologies. Based on a CCS stakeholder questionnaire survey and a literature review, we critically analyse discrepancies regarding perceptions of deployment obstacles and experiences from early demonstration plants. The analysis identifies discrepancies between CCS policies versus important deployment considerations and CCS stakeholder policy demands. The discrepancy gap is emphasised by lessons from restructured, postponed, and cancelled CCS projects. To bridge this cognitive gap towards proving CCS through demonstration activities, the article highlights policy implications of establishing a broad understanding of deployment obstacles. Attention to these obstacles is important for policymakers and industry in channelling efforts to demonstrating CCS, hence validating the current focus on CCS as a key abatement potential. Under present conditions, the findings question the robustness of current CCS abatement potential estimates and deployment goals as established by policymakers and in scenarios.

The Last Chance to Save the Planet? An Analysis of the Geoengineering Advocacy Discourse in the Public Debate

Geoengineering, i.e., the deliberate manipulation of the global climate using grand-scale technologies, poses new challenges in terms of environmental risks and human-nature relationships. Until recently, these technologies were considered science fiction, but they are now being reconsidered by researchers, leading to an emerging public debate. Our aim is to improve our understanding of the public discourse on geoengineering in mass media. We analyze 1500 articles published from 2005 to 2013, constructing four coherent storylines that represent most of the geoengineering advocacy in the public discourse in mass media. We scrutinize inconsistencies in this discourse and argue that geoengineering may be the first example of a grand-scale technology that in some important respects has clear postmodern tendencies: geoengineering advocacy, for example, is not based on objective truth claims of the natural sciences and does not promise a better world.

Climate change in the baltic sea region : A cross-country analysis of institutional stakeholder perceptions

Before climate change is considered in long-term coastal management, it is necessary to investigate how institutional stakeholders in coastal management conceptualize climate change, as their awareness will ultimately affect their actions. Using questionnaires in eight Baltic Sea riparian countries, this study examines environmental managers’ awareness of climate change. Our results indicate that problems related to global warming are deemed secondary to short-term social and economic issues. Respondents agree that problems caused by global warming will become increasingly important, but pay little attention to adaptation and mitigation strategies. Current environmental problems are expected to continue to be urgent in the future. We conclude that an apparent gap exists between decision making, public concerns, and scientific consensus, resulting in a situation in which the latest evidence rarely influences commonly held opinions.

Climate Change and the Convergence between ENGOs and Business: On the Loss of Utopian Energies

The conflicts permeating the environmental debate since the 1960s have mainly involved two actors: multinational companies and international environmental organizations (ENGOs). Today, there are signs that the antagonism is ending with regards to co-operation and strategy. We argue that this convergence is no longer limited to specific joint projects, but is also prevalent at the idea and policy levels. Both actors have begun describing problems in similar terms, articulating the same goals and recommending the same solutions. Such convergence offers advantages in efforts to counteract climate change but also some problems: declining citizen trust in ENGOs, risk of intellectually impoverished environmental and energy debates, and loss of alternate visions and values.

Partisan Scholarship in Technoscientific Controversies: Reflections on Research Experience

Several academic traditions have addressed epistemological objectivity and/or partisanship in the study of technoscientific controversies. On the one hand, positivist and relativist scholars agree that the political commitments of the social researcher should not impinge on scientific enquiry, while on the other hand, feminist and Marxist scholars not only take stands in diverse technoscientific debates, but even claim their agendas to be more credible than those of orthodox scientists. Such perspectives stress that all research is partisan in one way or another because it involves questions of who controls, manipulates, and establishes decisions, facts, and knowledge. With this in mind, it is possible to identify different forms of partisan research including capture by participants, de facto and overt partisanship, and mercenary scholarship. These different forms of partisan scholarship are characterised by differences in the motives underlying epistemological choices of research topic and method, personal commitments to the fields studied, use of research findings in controversies, and positioning of results in wider debates. Two examples help to illustrate partisan scholarship: first, a study of new technologies for managing climate change (carbon dioxide capture and storage); and second, the construction of the new underground metro system in Athens and its accommodation of accessibility standards. Both cases entail partisan positions and raise similar concerns about the orthodox epistemological assumptions underpinning sociotechnical systems, especially when it comes to technoscientific controversies. Supporting STS partisan scholarship, therefore, enables greater social and democratic engagement with technoscientific development.

Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world

Recently, climate engineering and particularly sulphur aerosol injection (SAI) have entered the arena of international climate change politics. The idea behind SAI is very simple: to reflect sunlight and heat back into space by injecting particles into the stratosphere. SAI has the theoretical potential to moderate anthropogenic climate change in a timely fashion and at very low costs but may also cause major environmental harm. Determining the future of SAI will entail dealing with many major uncertainties such as assessing risks, costs and benefits. This paper critically investigates scientific knowledge production under conditions of major uncertainty. It discusses how uncertainty, ethics and social considerations are treated in the SAI literature, which applies techno-economic models. In the simplest studies, important uncertainties are excluded from the models, but the more complex studies include many uncertainties, which may have considerable influence on the results and recommendations. In some cases the modelled results are overshadowed or strengthened by ethical discussions or methodological reflexivity that emphasize uncertainties and model limitations. There seems to be ambivalence between constructing certainty, on one hand, and an awareness of methodological limitations, on the other. Finally, the value of these papers for decision-makers and other concerned groups is discussed.

Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries

This study explores sense-making about climate engineering among lay focus group participants in Japan, New Zealand, the USA and Sweden. In total, 23 qualitative focus group interviews of 136 participants were conducted. The analyses considered sense-making strategies and heuristics among the focus group participants and identified commonalities and variations in the data, exploring participants’ initial and spontaneous reactions to climate engineering and to several recurrent arguments that feature in scientific and public debate (e.g. climate emergency). We found that, despite this study’s wide geographical scope, heterogeneous focus group compositions, and the use of different moderators, common themes emerged. Participants made sense of climate engineering in similar ways, for example, through context-dependent analogies and metaphorical descriptions. With few exceptions, participants largely expressed negative views of large-scale deliberate intervention in climate systems as a means to address anthropogenic global warming.

Has the grand idea of geoengineering as Plan B run out of steam

Paul Crutzen’s 2006 call for geoengineering research triggered public debate in the mass media of several countries. Since then, a common belief among numerous involved scientists has been that more geoengineering experimentation or research is needed and that geoengineering should be carefully considered in a precautionary way as an emergency option or ‘Plan B’. Despite the controversial potential of geoengineering in terms of mega-risks, ethical dilemmas and governance challenges, public geoengineering debate in the daily press from 2006 to 2013 was heavily dominated by accounts of scientists’ arguments for more geoengineering research or even deployment, only about 8% of mass media articles expressing criticism of geoengineering. However, based on a reading of 700 articles published worldwide in 2014 and 2015, we demonstrate a gradual shift in the coverage, and the daily press now primarily reports critical views of geoengineering technologies. The patterns outlined here point in the same direction: It seems as though the grand idea of geoengineering as Plan B is fading.