Skip to main content

The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience

  • Silke Beck (a1) and Martin Mahony (a2)
Non-technical summary

In the post-Paris political landscape, the relationship between science and politics is changing. We discuss what this means for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), using recent controversies over negative emissions technologies (NETs) as a window into the fraught politics of producing policy-relevant pathways and scenarios. We suggest that pathways and scenarios have a ‘world-making’ power, potentially shaping the world in their own image and creating new political realities. Assessment bodies like the IPCC need to reflect on this power, and the implications of changing political contexts, in new ways.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience
      Available formats
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (, which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
Author for correspondence: S. Beck, E-mail:
Hide All
1.Hulme, M. 2016. 1.5 °C and climate research after the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate Change 6(3), 222224.
2.Beck, S., Forsyth, T., Kohler, P., Lahsen, M., & Mahony, M. 2017. The Making of Global Environmental Science and Politics. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 4th Edition, (ed. Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C.A. & Smith-Doerr, L.), pp. 10591086. MIT Press.
3.Hoppe, R., Wesselink, A., & Cairns, R. 2013. Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change. WIREs: Climate Change, 4(4), 283300.
4.Jasanoff, S. 2012. Science and Public Reason. Routledge.
5.Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D.H. 2008. Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edition, (ed. Hackett, E.J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M. & Wajcman, J.), pp. 9791000. MIT Press.
6.Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751760.
7.Polanyi, M. 1962. The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1, 5473.
8.Ezrahi, Y. 1990. The Descent of Icarus,. Harvard University Press.
9.Gieryn, T.F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781795.
10.Guston, D.H. 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399408.
11.Mahony, M. 2015. Climate change and the geographies of objectivity: the case of the IPCC's burning embers diagram. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40, 153167.
12.Jasanoff, S. 2004. Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society. In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, (ed. Jasanoff, S.), pp. 1345. Routledge.
13.Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.H. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power,. University of Chicago Press.
14.Selin, C. 2008. The sociology of the future: tracing stories of technology and time. Sociology Compass, 2(6), 18781895.
15.Low, S. 2017. The futures of climate engineering. Earth's Future, 5(1), 6771.
16.Workforrain. Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage: Climate Savior or Goat? Accessed 24 March 2018.
17.Stilgoe, J. 2015. Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation in Geoengineering,. Routledge.
18.Himmelsbach, R. 2018. How scientists advising the European Commission on research priorities view climate engineering proposals. Science and Public Policy, 45(1), 124133.
19.Fuss, S., Canadell, J.G., Peters, G.P., Tavoni, M., Andrew, R.M., Ciais, P., Jackson, R.B., Jones, C.D., Kraxner, F., Nakicenovic, N., Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M.R., Sharifi, A., Smith, S., & Yamagata, Y. 2014. Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 850853.
20.Anderson, K. 2015. Duality in climate science. Nature Geoscience, 8(12), 898900.
21.European Academies Science Advisory Council. Negative emission technology: what role in meeting Paris targets? Accessed 24 March 2018.
22.Ricke, K.L., Millar, R.J., & MacMartin, D.G. 2017. Constraints on global temperature target overshoot. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 14743.
23.Flegal, J.A., & Gupta, A. 2017. Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(1), 4561. Goede, M., & Randalls, S. 2009. Precaution, Preemption: Arts and Technologies of the Actionable Future. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27(5), 859878.
25.Miller, C.A. 2004. Climate Science and the Making of a Global Political Order. In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, (ed. Jasanoff, S.), pp. 4666. Routledge.
26.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Organization. Accessed 24 March 2018.
27.Bodansky, D. 2001. The History of the Global Climate Change Regime. In International Relations and Global Climate Change, (ed. Luterbacher, U. & Sprinz, D.F.), pp. 2340. MIT Press.
28.United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Accessed 24 March 2018.
29.Bolin, B. 1994. Science and policy making. Ambio, 23(1), 2529.
30.Haas, P.M. 1992. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 135.
31.Pielke, R.A. Jr. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics,. Cambridge University Press.
32.Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Grubler, A., Riahi, K., Roehrl, R.A., Rogner, H.H., & Victor, N. 2000. Emissions Scenarios a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES): a Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,. Cambridge University Press.
33.Oreskes, N. 2015. How earth science has become a social science. Historical Social Research, 40(2), 246270.
34.Moss, R.H. 1995. The IPCC: policy relevant (not driven) scientific assessment: a comment on Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's ‘Global climate protection policy, the limits of scientific advice’. Global Environmental Change, 5(3), 171174.
35.Lövbrand, E. 2011. Co-producing European climate science and policy. A cautionary note on the funding and making of useful knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 225236.
36.Preston, C.A. 2016. Introduction: Climate Justice and Geoengineering. In Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene, (ed. Preston, C.A.), pp. vii-xxiii. Rowman & Littlefield International.
37.van Vuuren, D.P., Elzen, M., Lucas, P.L., Eickhout, B., Strengers, B.J., Van Ruijven, B., Wonink, S., & Houdt, R. 2007. Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Change, 81(2), 119159.
38.Rosen, R.A. 2015. IAMs and peer review. Nature, 5(5), 390.
39.Beck, M., & Krueger, T. 2016. The epistemic, ethical, and political dimensions of uncertainty in integrated assessment modeling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(5), 627645.
40.Avoid 2 Climate Change Research Programme. Overshoot scenarios and their climate response. Accessed 10 May 2018.
41.Anderson, K., & Peters, G. 2016. The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354, 182183.
42.Weyant, J., Azar, C., Kainuma, M., Kejun, J., Nakicenovic, N., Shukla, P.R., & Yohe, G. Report of 2.6 versus 2.9 Watts/m2 RCPP Evaluation Panel. Integrated Assessment Modelling Consortium. Accessed 26 March 2018.
43.Edenhofer, O., & Kowarsch, M. 2015. Cartography of pathways: a new model for environmental policy assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 5664.
44.United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Accessed 24 April 2017.
45.Rayner, S. 2016. What might Evans-Pritchard have made of two degrees? Anthropology Today, 32(4), 12.
46.Actionaid. Caught in the Net: How “net-zero emissions” will delay real climate action and drive land grabs. Accessed 27 September 2017.
47.Geden, O. 2016. The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(6), 790797.
48.Victor, D.G. 2015. Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature, 520(7545), 2729.
49.Vervoort, J., & Gupta, A. 2018. Anticipating climate futures in a 1.5 °C era: the link between foresight and governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 104111.
50.Vaughan, N.E., & Gough, C. 2016. Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver. Environmental Research Letters, 11(9), 95003.
51.Stirling, A. 2008. ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 262294.
52.Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N.E., & Lenton, T. 2012. A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs Climate Change, 3, 597615.
53.Fridahl, M. 2017. Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy, 104, 8999.
54.Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 15681580.
55.Bellamy, R. 2016. A sociotechnical framework for governing climate engineering. Science Technology, & Human Values, 41(2), 135162.
56.United Nations Environment Programme. The Emissions Gap Report 2017. Accessed 12 March 2018.
57.Cairns, R.C. 2014. Climate geoengineering: issues of path-dependence and socio-technical lock-in. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(5), 649661.
58.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change,. Contribution of Working Group III to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva.
59.Vaidyanathan, G. Nuclear Power Must Make a Comeback for Climate's Sake. Accessed 22 March 2018.
60.International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear Power and the Paris Agreement. Accessed 26 October 2017.
61.Young, D., & Mengel, J. Why the IPCC's upcoming 1.5 °C report offers an unexpected glimpse of hope. Accessed 10 May 2018.
62.Young, D. The IPCC at 30. Is the 1.5 °C Special Report a turning point? Accessed 11 May 2018.
63.Nordmann, A. 2007. If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics, 1(1), 3146.
64.Hallegatte, S., Rogelj, J., Allen, M., Clarke, L., Edenhofer, O., Field, C.B., Friedlingstein, P., Van Kesteren, L., Knutti, R., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M., Michel, A., Minx, J., Oppenheimer, M., Plattner, G-K., Riahi, R., Schaeffer, M., Stocker, T., & Van Vuuren, D. 2016. Mapping the climate change challenge. Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 663668.
65.Williamson, P. 2016. Emissions reduction: scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature, 530, 153155.
66.Pielke, R. Jr., Wigley, T., & Green, C. 2008. Dangerous assumptions. Nature, 452(7187), 531.
67.Gilligan, J. Dangerous Assumptions Revisited. Accessed 22 March 2018.
68.Stevenson, S., & Pielke, R. Jr. Assumptions of Spontaneous Decarbonization in the IPCC AR5 Baseline Scenarios. Accessed 22 March 2018.
69.Lahsen, M. 2005. seductive simulations? Uncertainty distribution around climate models. Social Studies of Science, 35(6), 895922.
70.Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N.E., & Lenton, T. 2013. ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environmental Change, 23, 926937.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Global Sustainability
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2059-4798
  • URL: /core/journals/global-sustainability
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed