Deliberative Decarbonisation? Assessing the Potential of an Ethical Governance Framework for Low-Carbon Energy through the Case of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2015
Deliberative Decarbonisation? Assessing the Potential of an Ethical Governance Framework for Low-Carbon Energy through the Case of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
In this paper we explore the potential of a framework of ethical governance for low-carbon energy. Developing mainly in the field of information and communications technology, ethical governance is concerned with the marginalisation of ethical and moral issues during development and deployment of new technologies. Focusing on early carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) projects, we argue that a focus on technical arguments in the governance of low-carbon energy similarly risks sidelining deeper issues such as fairness, justice, and values. We believe an ethical governance approach does have potential for low-carbon energy technologies like CCS, but also that climate change mitigation technologies pose particular challenges for the implementation of ethical governance.
AndersonE, 2012, “Epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions”Social Epistemology26163–173
2.
AndrewsR N L, 1982, “Cost–benefit analysis and regulatory reform”, in Cost–benefit Analysis and Environmental Regulations: Politics, Ethics, and Methods Eds SwartzmanDLiroffRCrokeK, (The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC) pp 107–135
BickerstaffKWalkerG, 2003, “The place(s) of matter: Matter out of place: Public understandings of air pollution”Progress in Human Geography2745–67
5.
BlackfordJJonesNProctorRHoltJWiddicombeSLoweDReesA, 2009, “An initial assessment of the potential environmental impact of CO2 escape from marine carbon capture and storage systems”Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part A, Journal of Power and Energy223(A3) 269–280
6.
BradburyJRayIPetersonT RWadeSParodiG W, 2009, “The role of social factors in shaping public perceptions of CCS: Results of multi-state focus group interviews in the US”Energy Procedia14665–4672
7.
BradburyJGreenbergSWadeS, 2011Communicating the Risks of CCSGlobal Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, Canberra
BuhrKHanssonA, 2011, “Capturing the stories of corporations: A comparison of media debates on carbon capture and storage in Norway and Sweden”Global Environmental Change21336–345
10.
BurgessJClarkJHarrisonC, 2000, “Culture, communication, and the information problem in contingent valuation surveys: A case study of a Wildlife Enhancement Scheme”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy18505–524
ConradECassarL FChristieMFazeyI, 2011, “Hearing but not listening? A participatory assessment of public participation in planning”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29761–782
13.
CorryORieschH, 2012, “Beyond ‘for or against’: Environmental NGO-evaluations of CCS as a climate change solution”, in The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage Eds MarkussonNShackleySEvarB, (Earthscan, London) pp 91–102
de Best-WaldhoberMDaamenDFaaijA, 2009, “Informed public opinions on CO2-capture and storage technologies”Energy Procedia14795–4802
16.
de GrootJ I MStegL, 2011, “Psychological perspectives on the geological disposal of radioactive waste and carbon dioxide”, in Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide and Radioactive Waste: A Comparative Assessment Ed. TothF L, (IAEA, Paris) pp 339–363
DobsonA, 1996, “Representative democracy and the environment”, in Democracy and the Environment Eds LaffertyWMeadowcroftJ, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 124–139
19.
DuetschkeE, 2010, “What drives local public acceptance: Comparing two cases from Germany”Energy Procedia46234–6240
20.
Eurobarometer, 2011Special Eurobarometer 364: Eurobarometer Survey on Public Awareness and Acceptance of CCSDG-Research, Brussels
EvarBShackleyS, 2012, “Technology arguments in the face of scientific uncertainty: A case study of the CCS Test Centre Mongstad”, in The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage Eds MarkussonNShackleySEvarB, (Earthscan, London) pp 172–188
23.
FeenstraC F JMikundaTBrunstingS, 2010, “What happened in Barendrecht? Case study on the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands”, Energy Research Centre for the Netherlands, Amsterdam, http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pybx.pdf
24.
FiorinoD J, 1990, “Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms”Science, Technology and Human Values15226–243
25.
FrickerM, 2007Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (Oxford University Press, New York)
GoughCBoucherP, 2013, “Ethical attitudes to underground CO2 storage: Points of convergence and potential faultlines”International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control13156–167
28.
GoujonPFlickC, 2011, “Ethical governance for emerging ICT: Opening cognitive framing and achieving reflexivity”What Kind of Information Society? Governance, Virtuality, Surveillance, Sustainability, Resilience32898–111
29.
GrayTHaggettCBellD, 2005, “Offshore wind farms and commercial fisheries in the UK: A study in stakeholder consultation”Ethics, Place and Environment8127–140
30.
HajerMKesselringS, 1999, “Democracy in the risk society? Learning from the new politics of mobility in Munich”Environmental Politics8(3) 1–23
31.
HammondJShackleyS, 2010, “Towards a public communication and engagement strategy for carbon dioxide capture and storage projects in Scotland: A review of research findings”, WP 2010-08, CCS Project ‘Experiences, Tools, Resources and Best Practices’, Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage, Edinburgh, http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/carbcap/website/publications/sccs-wp/wp-2010-08.pdf
IbarollaRShackleySRouillardJ, 2012, “EuTRACE deliverable 1.2. climate engineering case studies: What lessons can be learned from recent research?”, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
34.
JasanoffS, 2004, “Science and citizenship: A new synergy”Science and Public Policy3190–94
LoA Y, 2011, “Analysis and democracy: The antecedents of the deliberative approach of ecosystems valuation”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29958–974
37.
McLarenD, 2012, “Procedural justice in carbon capture and storage: A review”Energy and Environment23345–365
38.
MarkussonNShackleySEvarB, 2012The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage (Earthscan, London)
NETL, 2009Best Practices for: Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects1st edition, National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Washington DC
41.
O'NeillJ, 2007Markets, Deliberation and Environment (Routledge, London)
42.
O'RiordanT, 1983, “Review. Rationality and ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain by Brian Wynne”Social Studies of Science13621–626
RaineySGoujonP, 2011, “Toward a normative ethical governance of technology”, in Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields Ed. von SchombergR, (European Union, Brussels) pp 47–70
StephensJ CHanssonALiuYde ConinckH CVajjhalaS, 2011, “Characterising the international carbon capture and storage community”Global Environmental Change21379–390
53.
StirlingA, 2008, “‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology”Science, Technology and Human Values33262–294
54.
TokushigeKAkimotoKTomodaT, 2007, “Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information influencing the acceptance”International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control1101–112
55.
TorvangerAMeadowcroftJ, 2011, “The political economy of technology support: Making decisions about carbon capture and storage and low carbon energy technologies”Global Environmental Change21303–312
56.
WRI, 2010, “CCS and community engagement: Guidelines for community engagement in carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage projects”, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC
57.
WynneB, 1982Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain (British Society for History of Science, Chalfont, Bucks)
58.
WynneB, 1992, “Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science”Public Understanding of Science1281–304
