Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Case J - Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2019
Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
The case of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is a detailed example of an expert who stepped out of an arbiter or honest broker role and took on a more engaged and critical stance. The arbiter no longer found the terms of advice acceptable and felt the need to question the assumptions in the assessment of carbon capture and storage as a means to mitigate climate change. In her eyes, the CCS experts were turning into issue advocates, pushing their preferred solution. In the Netherlands, the issue came to a head in the media over a plan to store CO2 deep underground in Barendrecht, a village near the Dutch city of Rotterdam.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Environmental ExpertiseConnecting Science, Policy and Society, pp. 234 - 246Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Bäckstrand, K., Meadowcroft, J., and Oppenheimer, M. (2011). The Politics and Policy of Carbon Capture and Storage: Framing an Emergent Technology. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 275–281.Google Scholar
De Coninck, H. (2010). Advocacy for Carbon Capture and Storage Could Arouse Distrust. Nature, 463, 293.Google Scholar
De Coninck, H., and Bäckstrand, K. (2011). An International Relations Perspective on the Global Politics of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 368–378.Google Scholar
De Coninck, H. C., Flach, T., Curnow, P., et al. (2009). The Acceptability of CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) in Europe: An Assessment of the Key Determining Factors, Part 1 Scientific, Technical and Economic Dimensions. International Journal on Greenhouse Gas Control, 3, 333–343.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009). Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide and Amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. Brussels: European Commission, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32009L0031.Google Scholar
Feenstra, C. F. J., Mikunda, T., and Brunsting, S. (2010). What Happened in Barendrecht? Case Study on the Planned Onshore Carbon Dioxide Storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) & Global CCS Institute (GCCSI). www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/what-happened-barendrechtGoogle Scholar
IPCC (2005), Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Metz, B., Davidson, O., De Coninck, H. C., Loos, M., and Meyer, L. A. (eds.) Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Egmond, S., and Hekkert, M. P., 2015. An Analysis of a Prominent Carbon Storage Project Failure: The Role of the National Government as Initiator and Decision Maker in the Barendrecht Case. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 34, 1–11.Google Scholar