Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that receives growing recognition because of its extremely great in mitigating climate change. However, uncertainties concerning the viability of this approach exist. With this background, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a report in 2005 assessing of CCS. This article discusses the compilation process of the report, based on information collected through interviews with key participants and document research, highlighting how CCS’s key uncertainties were estimated in the face of two disparate needs: scientific rigor and policy relevance.
AgrawalaS. (1998) “Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Climatic Change39: 621–42.
2.
Boehmer-ChristiansenS. (1994) “Global Climate Protection Policy: The Limits of Scientific Advice, Part 1,” Global Environmental Change4(2): 140–59.
3.
CookP.J. (2007) “Public Science, Society, and the Greenhouse Gas Debate,” in PorterJ.M.PhillipsP.W.B. (eds) Public Science in Liberal Democracy, pp. 84–110. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
4.
EdwardsP.N.SchneiderS.H. (2001) “Self-Governance and Peer Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report,” in MillerC.A.EdwardsP.N. (eds) Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environment Governance, pp. 219–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
EzrahiY. (1990) The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
FogelC. (2004) “The Local, the Global, and the Kyoto Protocol,” in JasanoffS.Long MartelloM. (eds) Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance, pp. 103–25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
FuntowiczS.O.RavetzJ.R. (1993) “Science for the Post-normal Age,” Futures25(7): 739–55.
8.
GottweisH. (1995) “German Politics of Genetic Engineering and its Deconstruction,” Social Studies of Science25(2): 195–235.
9.
IPCC (2005) IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
JasanoffS. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
JasanoffS. (1991) “Acceptable Evidence in a Pluralistic Society,” in HollanderR.MayoD. (eds) Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Hazard Management, pp. 29–47. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
JasanoffS. (2004) “Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society,” in JasanoffS. (ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, pp. 13–45. London: Routledge.
13.
JasanoffS. (2005a) “Judgment under Siege: The Three-Body Problem of Expert Legitimacy,” in MaasenS.WeingartP. (eds) Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, pp. 209–24. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Vol. 24. Dordrecht: Springer.
14.
JasanoffS. (2005b) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15.
LacknerK.S.SachsJ.D. (2005) “A Robust Strategy for Sustainable Energy Use,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity2: 215–84.
16.
LahsenM. (2007) “Trust through Participation? Problems of Knowledge in Climate Decision Making,” in PettengerM.E. (ed.) The Social Construction of Climate Change: Power, Knowledge, Norm, Discourses, pp. 173–96. Aldershot: Ashgate.
17.
LevyD.L. (2005) “Business and the Evolution of the Climate Change Regime: The Dynamics of Corporate Strategies,” in LevyD.L.NewellP.J. (eds) The Business of Global Environmental Governance, pp. 73–104. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
LevyD.L.KolkA. (2002) “Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry,” Business and Politics4(3): 275–300.
19.
LohmannL. (2005) “Marketing and Making Carbon Dumps: Commodification, Calculation and Counterfactuals in Climate Change Mitigation,” Science as Culture14(3): 203–35.
20.
MarchettiC. (1977) “On Geoengineering and the CO2
Problem,” Climatic Change1(1): 59–68.
21.
MertonR.K. ([1942] 1973) “The Normative Structure of Science,” in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigation, pp. 267–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
MillerC.A. (2001) “Challenges in the Application of Science to Global Affairs: Contingency, Trust, and Moral Order,” in MillerC.A.EdwardsP.N. (eds) Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environment Governance, pp. 247–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
MillerC.A. (2005) “New Civic Epistemologies of Quantification: Making Sense of Indicators of Local and Global Sustainability,” Science, Technology and Human Values30: 403–32.
24.
MossR.H.SchneiderS.H. (2000) “Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to Lead Authors for More Consistent Assessment and Reporting,” in PachauriR.TaniguchiT.TanakaK. (eds) Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, pp. 33–51. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.
25.
PacalaS.SocolowR. (2004) “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies,” Science305: 968–72.
26.
PolanyiM. (1962) “The Republic of Science,” Minerva1: 54–73.
27.
PorterT. (1995) Trust in Numbers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
PulverS. (2007) “Making Sense of Corporate Environmentalism: An Environmental Contestation Approach to Analyzing the Causes and Consequences of the Climate Change Policy Split in the Oil Industry,” Organization Management20(1): 44–83.
29.
RavetzJ.FuntowiczS. (1999) “Editorial: Post-Normal Science – An Insight Now Maturing,” Futures31(7): 641–6.
30.
RowlandsI. (2000) “Beauty and the Beast? BP’s and Exxon’s Positions on Global Climate Change,” Environment and Planning C18(3): 339–54.
31.
SiebenhünerB. (2006) “Can Assessments Learn, and If So, How? A Study of the IPCC,” in FarrellA.E.JägerJ. (eds) Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decisionmaking, pp. 166–86. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
32.
SkjaersethJ.B.SkodvinT. (2001) “Climate Change and the Oil Industry: Common Problem, Different Strategies,” Global Environmental Politics1(4): 43–64.
33.
StarS.L.GriesemerJ.R. (1989) “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39,” Social Studies of Science19: 387–420.
34.
StephensJ.C. (2006) “Growing Interest in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for Climate Change Mitigation,” Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy2(2): 4–13.
35.
SternN. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
TjernshaugenA. (2008) “Oil Companies and CO2 Storage,” Paper prepared for presentation at the ISA’s 49th Annual Convention, “Bridging Multiple Divides,” San Francisco, CA, 26March. URL (accessed 18June2008): http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p252269_index.html
37.
WeinbergA.M. (1972) “Science and Trans-Science,” Minerva10: 209–22.
38.
WynneB. (1996) “Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science,” in IrwinA.WynneB. (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, pp. 19–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
