liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Hansson, Anders
Publications (10 of 27) Show all publications
Haikola, S., Hansson, A. & Anshelm, J. (2019). From polarization to reluctant acceptance: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 16(1), 45-69
Open this publication in new window or tab >>From polarization to reluctant acceptance: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate
2019 (English)In: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, ISSN 1943-815X, E-ISSN 1943-8168, Vol. 16, no 1, p. 45-69Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The paper covers the public debate on BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) between 2008 and 2018. Through a qualitative analysis of around 800 feature articles, editorials, and opinion pieces published in English, German, Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian in news media and debates sections of scientific media, we highlight conspicuous aspects of the debate and relate them to the theoretical concept of post-normal science. We find that the debate is characterized by an emphasis on values, scientific uncertainty and the integrity of science, premised on a pervading sense of urgency. To a significant extent, the debate can be understood as a “normal” view of science questioning what it perceives to be unscientific model-based climate scenarios, and the scenarios, in turn, can be seen as a response to post-normal circumstances. The urgency permeating the debate provides conditions for open debate about ethical and epistemological uncertainty. The debate goes through a period of polarization – corroborating findings from previous studies on the climate science debate after COP21 – between an intense critique of BECCS inclusion in climate scenarios and reluctant acceptance thereof. Towards the end of the studied period, emphasis shifts towards reluctant acceptance, indicating that post-normal debate may only occur as a temporary state always tending towards new consensus.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2019
Keywords
BECCS, the IPCC, climate science debate, Paris agreement, climate politics, post-normal science
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Economic Information Systems
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-155722 (URN)10.1080/1943815X.2019.1579740 (DOI)000466110800001 ()
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-00958Swedish Research Council, 2016-06359
Note

Funding agencies: Svenska Forskningsradet Formas [2016-00958]; Vetenskapsradet [2016-06359]

Available from: 2019-03-25 Created: 2019-03-25 Last updated: 2019-09-24Bibliographically approved
Haikola, S., Hansson, A. & Fridahl, M. (2018). Views of BECCS among modelers and policymakers. In: Mathias Fridahl (Ed.), Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials to domestic realities (pp. 17-31). Brussels: Liberal European Forum
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Views of BECCS among modelers and policymakers
2018 (English)In: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials to domestic realities / [ed] Mathias Fridahl, Brussels: Liberal European Forum , 2018, p. 17-31Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Chapter 3 (“Views of BECCS Among Modelers and Policymakers”) moves from exploring the magnitude of BECCS deployment in climate scenarios to outlining caveats raised by modelers themselves. The chapter addresses how modelers navigate the landscape of political and academic pressures to deliver timely, insightful, and relevant policy advice despite inherent and crucial uncerttainties and increasing model complexity. Based on interviews with modelers, the chapter discusses perspectives on uncertainty, the communication of IAM results, and the models’ relationship to reality. The chapter also discuss views of BECCS among policymakers whom generally want to give relatively low priority to investments in BECCS. Failing to invest in the future delivery of BECCS, combined with today’s lack of mitigation ambition, limits future generations’ maneuvering room to resolve the climate crisis.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Brussels: Liberal European Forum, 2018
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-152663 (URN)9789187379475 (ISBN)
Available from: 2018-11-12 Created: 2018-11-12 Last updated: 2018-11-12Bibliographically approved
Hansson, A. & Anshelm, J. (2016). Has the grand idea of geoengineering as Plan B run out of steam?. The Anthropocene Review, 3(1), 64-74
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Has the grand idea of geoengineering as Plan B run out of steam?
2016 (English)In: The Anthropocene Review, ISSN 2053-0196, E-ISSN 2053-020X, Vol. 3, no 1, p. 64-74Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2016
Keywords
climate change, climate engineering, discourse analysis, geoengineering, mass media, public debate
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-122389 (URN)10.1177/2053019615614592 (DOI)
Projects
LUCE
Funder
Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, 2012-1838Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, 2012-725
Available from: 2015-10-30 Created: 2015-10-30 Last updated: 2017-12-01Bibliographically approved
Wibeck, V., Hansson, A., Himmelsbach, R., Fridahl, M., Linnér, B.-O. & Anshelm, J. (2016). Policy brief on climate engineering. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Policy brief on climate engineering
Show others...
2016 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Climate engineering (geoengineering) has been widely discussed as a potential instrument for curbing global warming if politics fails to deliver green house gas emission reductions. This debate has lost momentum over the last couple of years, but is now being renewed in the wake of the December 2015 Paris climate change agreement. Resurgent interest primarily stems from two elements of the Paris agreement. First, by defining the long term goal as “achiev[ing] a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases” instead of decarbonization, the agreement can be interpreted as providing leeway for climate engineering proposals. Second, the agreement formulated a temperature goal of “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”. In response, several scientists argued that these goals may require climate engineering.

As these discussions will affect the forthcoming review of pathways toward 1.5°C warming, this policy brief takes stock of climate engineering. It draws on the expertise of Linköping University’s Climate Engineering (LUCE) interdisciplinary research programme. The brief provides an overview of the status of academic debate on climate engineering regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS);  stratospheric aerosol injection; and mass media reporting and public engagement.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2016. p. 4
Series
CSPR Briefing ; 2016:15
National Category
Climate Research Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-126348 (URN)
Available from: 2016-03-22 Created: 2016-03-22 Last updated: 2017-03-06Bibliographically approved
Stigson, P., Haikola, S., Hansson, A. & Buhr, K. (2016). Prospects for Swedish acceptance of carbon dioxide storage in the Baltic Sea: Learning from other energy projects. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, 6(2), 188-196
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Prospects for Swedish acceptance of carbon dioxide storage in the Baltic Sea: Learning from other energy projects
2016 (English)In: Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, E-ISSN 2152-3878, Vol. 6, no 2, p. 188-196Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

As initiatives are taken in Sweden to evaluate the geological potential for carbon dioxide storage in the adjacent Baltic Sea, experiences from elsewhere may provide lessons about perceptions of and potential opposition toward carbon capture and storage (CCS). A comprehensive analysis of storage feasibility needs to include the issue of social acceptance. The knowledge of CCS is low in Sweden however and there are no Swedish CCS projects to learn from. This paper therefore draws on lessons from other large-scale energy projects that are embedded in similar Baltic Sea contexts to complement lessons on CCS acceptance provided in the literature. The aim of this study is to facilitate an understanding of acceptance of potential future CO2 storage initiatives in the Swedish Baltic Sea region and to analyze what contextual factors are likely to be determinative of the outcome of these and similar projects. The study identifies climate change as one such key contextual factor, which can often be used both to support and oppose a large-scale energy project. Furthermore, the study finds that there are perceptions of uncertainties regarding the regulatory framework that need to be ad-ressed in order to facilitate the planning of CCS projects in the region.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2016
Keywords
CCS, storage, acceptance, communication, policy, Baltic Sea
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-124556 (URN)10.1002/ghg.1585 (DOI)000374141500005 ()
Projects
BASTOR2
Note

Funding agencies: Foundation for IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute; Swedish Energy Agency; Elforsk; Global CCS Institute; SSAB; Jernkontoret; Swedish Petroleum Exploration; Cementa; Nordkalk; SMA Mineral; Minfo; Vattenfall; Fortum; Preem

Available from: 2016-02-03 Created: 2016-02-03 Last updated: 2018-01-10
Anshelm, J. & Hansson, A. (2015). Climate change and the convergence between ENGOs and business. In: Jonas Anshelm, Kajsa Ellegård, Jenny Palm, Harald Rohracher (Ed.), Socio-technical perspectives on sustainable energy systems: (pp. 285-306). Linköping: Linköping Unversity
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Climate change and the convergence between ENGOs and business
2015 (English)In: Socio-technical perspectives on sustainable energy systems / [ed] Jonas Anshelm, Kajsa Ellegård, Jenny Palm, Harald Rohracher, Linköping: Linköping Unversity , 2015, p. 285-306Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping Unversity, 2015
Series
Linköping studies in technology and social change ; 2
Keywords
Klimatförändringar, Klimatpolitik
National Category
Energy Systems
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-118929 (URN)978-91-7519-104-1 (ISBN)
Available from: 2015-06-05 Created: 2015-06-05 Last updated: 2015-06-23Bibliographically approved
Hansson, A., Rayner, S. & Wibeck, V. (2015). Climate engineering (1ed.). In: Karin Bäckstrand, Eva Lövbrand (Ed.), Research handbook on climate governance: (pp. 411-422). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Climate engineering
2015 (English)In: Research handbook on climate governance / [ed] Karin Bäckstrand, Eva Lövbrand, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, 1, p. 411-422Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015 Edition: 1
Keywords
climate engineering, geoengineering, governance, climate change, framing, Klimatförändringar, Miljöteknik
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-127153 (URN)9781783470594 (ISBN)
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 2012-1101Swedish Research Council Formas, 2012-725Swedish Research Council Formas, 2012-1838
Available from: 2016-04-15 Created: 2016-04-15 Last updated: 2018-01-10Bibliographically approved
Hansson, A. (2015). Colonising the future: the case of carbon capture and storage. In: Jonas Anshelm, Kajsa Ellegård, Jenny Palm, Harald Rohracher (Ed.), Socio-technical perspectives on sustainable energy systems: (pp. 217-237). Linköping: Linköping University
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Colonising the future: the case of carbon capture and storage
2015 (English)In: Socio-technical perspectives on sustainable energy systems / [ed] Jonas Anshelm, Kajsa Ellegård, Jenny Palm, Harald Rohracher, Linköping: Linköping University , 2015, p. 217-237Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University, 2015
Series
Linköping studies in technology and social change ; 2
Keywords
Koldioxidavskiljning och lagring
National Category
Energy Systems
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-118926 (URN)978-91-7519-104-1 (ISBN)
Available from: 2015-06-05 Created: 2015-06-05 Last updated: 2015-06-23Bibliographically approved
Wibeck, V., Hansson, A. & Anshelm, J. (2015). Questioning the technological fix to climate change: Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden. Energy Research & Social Science, 7(May), 23-30
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Questioning the technological fix to climate change: Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden
2015 (English)In: Energy Research & Social Science, ISSN 2214-6296, Vol. 7, no May, p. 23-30Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper explores how Swedish laypeople make sense of emerging ideas of the large-scale deliberate technical manipulation of the global climate, known as geoengineering (GE). The paper is based on semi-structured focus group interviews with open-ended questions, allowing participants to express their spontaneous thoughts about GE. Although the focus group participants expressed great concern about climate change, GE was largely met with a sceptical, negative response. Participants perceived GE to: have negative environmental side-effects, address the symptoms rather than causes of climate change, create moral hazard and give rise to various governance challenges. Participants did not just reject the idea of GE outright; rather, social representations started to form in the focus groups through testing and negotiating arguments both pro and contra GE research and deployment.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2015
Keywords
Geoengineering; Climate change; Focus groups; Social representations; Public engagement
National Category
Communication Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-119732 (URN)10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001 (DOI)000218700000003 ()
Projects
LUCE
Funder
Swedish Research Council FormasSwedish Research Council
Available from: 2015-06-25 Created: 2015-06-25 Last updated: 2018-03-09Bibliographically approved
Hansson, A. (2014). Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 11(2), 125-142
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world
2014 (English)In: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, ISSN 1943-815X, E-ISSN 1943-8168, ISSN 1943-815X, Vol. 11, no 2, p. 125-142Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2014
Keywords
climate engineering, geoengineering, sulphur aerosol injection, modelling, uncertainty, climate change
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-108316 (URN)10.1080/1943815X.2014.921629 (DOI)000337948900003 ()
Projects
LUCE
Funder
Formas, 2012-1838
Available from: 2014-06-26 Created: 2014-06-26 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications