Vehicle or destination? Discordant perspectives in CCS advocacy
Appears in the following Collection
AbstractWhile climate change inaction is often attributed to self-interest and denial, the motivations for action and advocacy tend to be taken for granted. This asymmetry limits our understanding of how technological cultures mobilize in the face of crisis. This thesis charts new territory by examining advocacy for CO2 capture and storage (CCS). CCS could reconcile climate and energy concerns in international climate change mitigation, but there are controversies about its safety and societal implications. CCS supporters include fossil fuel companies, governments, environmental organizations and scientists. As technology advocates they seek political support and public acceptance. Participant observation and interviews with policy actors in Europe and the USA tune in to three dimensions of advocacy: representations of CCS as a public good; organizations channelling CCS support; and emergent communities of CCS experts. Here advocacy factions must negotiate diverging interests, resources, and levels of urgency. Technical-social systems constrain displays of, and commitments to, shared advocacy, belying popular claims about technology as a tool for policy convergence and crisis response.
List of papers
|Article I Gjefsen, Mads Dahl. 2013. “Carbon Cultures: Technology Planning for Energy and Climate in the US and EU,” Science & Technology Studies 26(3). The paper is available in DUO: http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-52553|
|Article II Gjefsen, Mads Dahl. 2013. “Limits to prediction: Europeanizing technology in an expert forum,” European Journal of Futures Research 1:24. The paper is available in DUO: http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-38688|
|Article III Gjefsen, Mads Dahl. “Creating the Expert-Advocate: Building Community for an Emerging Technology,” in review. To be published. The paper is not available in DUO awaiting publishing.|