Boundary Work and Interpretations in the IPCC Review Process of the Role of Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in Limiting Global Warming to 1.5°C

Abstract

Paris Agreement-compatible emissions pathways produced by integrated assessment models (IAMs) often rely on large amounts of carbon dioxide removals, especially afforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). These pathways feature prominently in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to the extent that the IAMs have been granted an interpretative privilege at the interface between climate science, economics, and policymaking. The privilege extends to and influences climate governance, including governance of BECCS. This paper contributes to recent debates about the role of the IPCC, and its framing of BECCS, at the science-policy interface. By analyzing all BECCS-related expert review comments and author responses on the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, the paper shows that boundary work influences the representation of BECCS by authors referring to: (1) a limited scope or capacity; (2) a restrictive mandate; (3) what constitutes legitimate science, and; (4) relativizing uncertainties. The responses to the review comments indicate a significant degree of compliance on behalf of the authors. Yet, the revisions do not seem to go to the heart of the unease that runs through many of the reviewer comments, i.e., that BECCS seems to be presented as a viable CDR technology at grand scale. While several revisions serve to clarify uncertainties surrounding BECCS, some fundamental aspects of the critique are deflected, through the boundary work identified. What the analysis reveals, beyond a dissatisfaction among many reviewers with the focus on integrated assessment modeling, the associated pathway literature, and analysis of BECCS, is a disagreement about how model results should be interpreted and communicated. While acknowledging the herculean task of the IPCC and the efforts to improve the pathway literature that the SR1.5 triggered within the IAM communities, we argue that the identified boundary work also risks entrenching rather than problematize dominant framings of the feasibility of BECCS. Such entrenchment can counteract the ambition of opening up the scientific work of the IPCC to include more diversity in the process of drafting reports, and arguably also influence the governance of CDR.

A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“…A cut-off date for publishing this new research was set by the IPCC. Nevertheless, during the review process of SR15, it became apparent that the lack of available literature, alongside the specific mandate to focus on 1.5 C of warming, limited the framing of the report (see Hansson et al, 2021), and the technological pathways to achieve this goal that the report identified. The example of SR15 illustrates the tight connection the IPCC has with the scientific and social scientific communities upon whose work it bases its assessments (see also Chapter 12).…”

“…Hansson, A., Anshelm, J., Fridal, M., and Haikola, S. (2021). Boundary work and interpretations in the IPCC review process of the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and Storage (BECCS) in limiting global warming to 1.5 C. Frontiers in Climate, 3: 643224. http://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.643224This article is one of the few close studies of IPCC peer review of a particular issue.…”

Carbon Removal as Carbon Revival? Bioenergy, Negative Emissions, and the Politics of Alternative Energy Futures

“…In the UK, the actual realisation of large-scale BECCS to date has been stymied by significant costs associated both with capturing CO 2 and with developing infrastructures capable of achieving its safe, long-term storage. Recent research, moreover, has pointed to considerable expert "dissatisfaction" with a continuing tendency for BECCS to be presented as a viable carbon dioxide removal strategy at large scales (Hansson et al, 2021), as well as to divergent stakeholder interpretations of what it might mean to incentivise BECCS responsibly in practice (Bellamy et al, 2021). Nonetheless, for one influential contingent of UK-based industry organisations, scientific researchers and start-up firms, concerns about BECCS can be overcome by treating CO 2 not as a waste product per se, but as a valuable economic resource in its own right.…”

Promises and Pitfalls of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage : Actors' Perspectives, Challenges, and Mitigation Deterrence in Sweden

“…A common result based on IAMs is that large point sources of biogenic emissions such as energy utilities could implement BECCS on a large-scale globally in the coming decades (IPCC, 2018;Rogelj et al, 2018a), but the industrial sector (e.g., steel, cement, paper, ethanol, and chemicals) is also a strong contender for BECCS as well as a source of residual emissions (Tanzer et al, 2021). However, there are concerns about trade-offs between the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and large-scale deployment of BECCS, such as using arable land for bioenergy crops impacting biodiversity, water, forests, and food security (Hansson et al, 2021;Rogelj et al, 2018b;United Nations, 2015). Other factors that are crucial for deploying BECCS are geographical proximity to prospective storage sites, storage uncertainties, and public and political acceptance including enabling policies, although these factors are rarely considered by IAMs (Hansson et al, 2021;Janipour et al, 2021;Lane et al, 2021).…”