This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
In recent years, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has been awarded a key role in climate mitigation scenarios explored by integrated assessment models and referenced in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Because a majority of scenarios limiting global warming to 2 °C or 1,5 °C include vast deployment of BECCS, a critical discussion has emerged among experts about the moral implications of thus introducing an unproven technology into the policy realm. In this paper, we analyse this discussion as it has played out between 2013 and 2019, with a focus on how expert narratives are constructed in the mass media about the possibilities for decarbonisation within the current political-economic order. We find there are almost no narratives that support massive deployment of BECCS, and that all narratives presuppose limits to decarbonisation imposed by the current political-economic system. The perception of such limits lead some to argue, through deterministic and apolitical narratives, for the necessity of negative emissions technologies, while others argue instead that “degrowth” is the only solution. Thus, there is a distinct lack of positive narratives about how capitalism can bring about decarbonisation.
Simon Haikola; Jonas Anshelm; Anders Hansson. Limits to climate action - Narratives of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Political Geography 2021, 88, 102416 .
AMA StyleSimon Haikola, Jonas Anshelm, Anders Hansson. Limits to climate action - Narratives of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Political Geography. 2021; 88 ():102416.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSimon Haikola; Jonas Anshelm; Anders Hansson. 2021. "Limits to climate action - Narratives of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage." Political Geography 88, no. : 102416.
As land-based mining industries face increasing complexities, e.g., diminishing return on investments, environmental degradation, and geopolitical tensions, governments are searching for alternatives. Following decades of anticipation, technological innovation, and exploration, deep seabed mining (DSM) in the oceans has, according to the mining industry and other proponents, moved closer to implementation. The DSM industry is currently waiting for international regulations that will guide future exploitation. This paper aims to provide an overview of the current status of DSM and structure ongoing key discussions and tensions prevalent in scientific literature. A narrative review method is applied, and the analysis inductively structures four narratives in the results section: (1) a green economy in a blue world, (2) the sharing of DSM profits, (3) the depths of the unknown, and (4) let the minerals be. The paper concludes that some narratives are conflicting, but the policy path that currently dominates has a preponderance towards Narrative 1—encouraging industrial mining in the near future based on current knowledge—and does not reflect current wider discussions in the literature. The paper suggests that the regulatory process and discussions should be opened up and more perspectives, such as if DSM is morally appropriate (Narrative 4), should be taken into consideration.
Axel Hallgren; Anders Hansson. Conflicting Narratives of Deep Sea Mining. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5261 .
AMA StyleAxel Hallgren, Anders Hansson. Conflicting Narratives of Deep Sea Mining. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (9):5261.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAxel Hallgren; Anders Hansson. 2021. "Conflicting Narratives of Deep Sea Mining." Sustainability 13, no. 9: 5261.
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.
Anders Hansson; Jonas Anshelm; Mathias Fridahl; Simon Haikola. 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 2021, 3, 1 .
AMA StyleAnders Hansson, Jonas Anshelm, Mathias Fridahl, Simon Haikola. 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. 2021; 3 ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAnders Hansson; Jonas Anshelm; Mathias Fridahl; Simon Haikola. 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, no. : 1.
Sweden and Finland have national goals to reach net negative greenhouse gas emissions before mid-century. Achieving these ambitious goals could employ negative emission technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, but it is unclear how this technology could be realized in an energy transition. Sweden and Finland stand out for having a large share of substantial point source emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide, in the production of pulp, heat and power. In the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, Sweden and Finland reported 64% and 51% biogenic emissions, respectively, in facilities emitting over 100 kt of carbon dioxide in 2017, while the corresponding collective figure for all European states in the database is 6%. This qualitative study highlights company actors’ perspectives on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage within a Nordic regional context and explores their perspective on emerging tensions in the energy transition. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 of the 24 companies with largest point sources of biogenic emissions. The results are framed around four emerging tensions regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage from companies’ perspectives in this study: (1) absence of reliable long-term policies; (2) limits to companies’ climate change responsibility; (3) technical trade-offs of carbon capture; and (4) lack of customer demands for negative emissions. According to most of the companies, it is technically feasible to capture carbon dioxide, but it could be a challenge to determine who is responsible to create a financially viable business case, to enact supporting policies, and to build transport and storage infrastructure. Company representatives argue that they already contribute to a sustainable society, and as such, that bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is not their priority without government collaboration. However, they are willing to contribute more and could have an increasing role towards an energy transition in an international context.
Emily Rodriguez; Adrian Lefvert; Mathias Fridahl; Stefan Grönkvist; Simon Haikola; Anders Hansson. Tensions in the energy transition: Swedish and Finnish company perspectives on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020, 280, 124527 .
AMA StyleEmily Rodriguez, Adrian Lefvert, Mathias Fridahl, Stefan Grönkvist, Simon Haikola, Anders Hansson. Tensions in the energy transition: Swedish and Finnish company perspectives on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 280 ():124527.
Chicago/Turabian StyleEmily Rodriguez; Adrian Lefvert; Mathias Fridahl; Stefan Grönkvist; Simon Haikola; Anders Hansson. 2020. "Tensions in the energy transition: Swedish and Finnish company perspectives on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage." Journal of Cleaner Production 280, no. : 124527.
Biochar was recently included as a promising negative emissions technology (NET) in the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike other NETs, it can potentially be used to mitigate global climate change while adding to local resilience in countries highly exposed and sensitive to impacts of climate change, such as least-developed countries (LDCs). The study is as an empirical contribution to the, as of yet, underdeveloped literature on deployment of negative emissions technologies in LDCs in general and on biochar use in developing countries and LDCs specifically. Nine historical and existing biochar projects in Tanzania are mapped in order to analyse problems, goals and common trade-offs associated with small- to medium-scale biochar production in LDCs. The mapping is based on a literature and document study, interviews with project actors, and on-site visits to biochar projects during 2019. The paper gives support to the observation made in the biochar literature that while biochar has many potential socio-economic and environmental benefits, combining them in one single project is difficult. It is concluded that implementing biochar projects in Tanzania will likely involve trade-offs between the development and subsistence strategies and needs of local communities, the motivational forces of different project participants, and the uneven regulatory capacity of the state. We end by reflecting on the use of biochar projects to offset carbon emissions made elsewhere.
Anders Hansson; Simon Haikola; Mathias Fridahl; Pius Yanda; Edmund Mabhuye; Noah Pauline. Biochar as multi-purpose sustainable technology: experiences from projects in Tanzania. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2020, 23, 5182 -5214.
AMA StyleAnders Hansson, Simon Haikola, Mathias Fridahl, Pius Yanda, Edmund Mabhuye, Noah Pauline. Biochar as multi-purpose sustainable technology: experiences from projects in Tanzania. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2020; 23 (4):5182-5214.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAnders Hansson; Simon Haikola; Mathias Fridahl; Pius Yanda; Edmund Mabhuye; Noah Pauline. 2020. "Biochar as multi-purpose sustainable technology: experiences from projects in Tanzania." Environment, Development and Sustainability 23, no. 4: 5182-5214.
The incongruence between the United Nations objective to hold global warming well below 2 °C and the rate of global emission reductions has intensified interest in negative emissions. Previous research has explored several pros and cons of individual negative emissions technologies. Systematised approaches to comparing and prioritising among them are, however, largely lacking. In response to this gap in the literature, this article reviews the scientific literature on indicators for designing negative emissions climate stabilisation value indexes. An index typically provides summary measures of several components, often denoted indicators. Utilizing a narrative review methodology, the article derives five categories of indicators underpinned by overlapping and often mutually reinforcing environmental and socio-economic values. A list of 21 indicators are proposed to capture both positive and negative values associated with effectiveness, efficiency, scale, risk, and synergies. While discussing indicators capable of providing guidance on negative emissions is timely, given the emerging shift away from pure emission reduction targets towards net-zero targets, numerous complexities are involved in determining their relative values. The results herein serve to inform policy making on the prioritisation and incentivisation of negative emissions technologies capable of delivering on the new objectives, and the results highlight the many risks and uncertainties involved in such exercises. The article concludes that systematic research on the comparison of NETs is incomplete. An iterative, interdisciplinary research programme exploring such questions has the potential to be extremely rewarding.
Mathias Fridahl; Anders Hansson; Simon Haikola. Towards Indicators for a Negative Emissions Climate Stabilisation Index: Problems and Prospects. Climate 2020, 8, 75 .
AMA StyleMathias Fridahl, Anders Hansson, Simon Haikola. Towards Indicators for a Negative Emissions Climate Stabilisation Index: Problems and Prospects. Climate. 2020; 8 (6):75.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMathias Fridahl; Anders Hansson; Simon Haikola. 2020. "Towards Indicators for a Negative Emissions Climate Stabilisation Index: Problems and Prospects." Climate 8, no. 6: 75.
Most mitigation scenarios compatible with a likely change of holding global warming well below 2 °C rely on negative emissions technologies (NETs). According to the integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to produce mitigation scenarios for the IPCC reports, the NET with the greatest potential to achieve negative emissions is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Crucial questions arise about where the enormous quantities of biomass needed according to the IAM scenarios could feasibly be produced in a sustainable manner. Africa is attractive in the context of BECCS because of large areas that could contribute biomass energy and indications of substantial underground CO2 storage capacities. However, estimates of large biomass availability in Africa are usually based on highly aggregated datasets, and only a few studies explore future challenges or barriers for BECCS in any detail. Based on previous research and literature, this paper analyses the pre-conditions for BECCS in Tanzania by studying what we argue are the applications of BECCS, or the components of the BECCS chain, that are most feasible in the country, namely (1) as applied to domestic sugarcane-based energy production (bioethanol), and (2) with Tanzania in a producer and re-growth role in an international BECCS chain, supplying biomass or biofuels for export to developed countries. The review reveals that a prerequisite for both options is either the existence of a functional market for emissions trading and selling, making negative emissions a viable commercial investment, or sustained investment through aid programmes. Also, historically, an important barrier to the development of production capacity of liquid biofuels for export purposes has been given by ethical dilemmas following in the wake of demand for land to facilitate production of biomass, such as sugarcane and jatropha. In these cases, conflicts over access to land and mismanagement have been more of a rule than an exception. Increased production volumes of solid biomass for export to operations that demand bioenergy, be it with or without a CCS component, is likely to give rise to similar conflicts. While BECCS may well play an important role in reducing emissions in countries with high capacity to act combined with existing large point sources of biogenic CO2 emissions, it seems prudent to proceed with utmost caution when implicating BECCS deployment in least developed countries, like Tanzania.The paper argues that negative BECCS-related emissions from Tanzania should not be assumed in global climate mitigation scenarios.
Anders Hansson; Mathias Fridahl; Simon Haikola; Pius Yanda; Noah Pauline; Edmund Mabhuye. Preconditions for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Tanzania. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2019, 22, 6851 -6875.
AMA StyleAnders Hansson, Mathias Fridahl, Simon Haikola, Pius Yanda, Noah Pauline, Edmund Mabhuye. Preconditions for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Tanzania. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2019; 22 (7):6851-6875.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAnders Hansson; Mathias Fridahl; Simon Haikola; Pius Yanda; Noah Pauline; Edmund Mabhuye. 2019. "Preconditions for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Tanzania." Environment, Development and Sustainability 22, no. 7: 6851-6875.
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has recently risen to international prominence due to its modelled potential to allow a mid-term temperature overshoot compensated by large, long-term removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The technology, however, is far from commercial. Therefore, BECCS is a suitable entry point for exploring how modellers identify, manage and communicate uncertainties. By applying framing analysis to 21 interviews with researchers working directly or closely with integrated assessment models (IAMs), three prevalent cognitive frames are identified: Climate scenarios as (1) talking points to discuss possible futures, (2) fundamentally political prescriptions that foreclose alternatives, and (3) distortions of pure science. The discourse around IAMs has entered a phase of critical reflection about their performative, political dimensions, both inside and outside of the IA modelling community. This phase is marked by modellers grappling with the responsibilities that are perceived to come with simultaneously providing maps of possible futures and standards by which these maps are to be evaluated.
Simon Haikola; Anders Hansson; Mathias Fridahl. Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain: Expert understandings of epistemological uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Futures 2019, 114, 102472 .
AMA StyleSimon Haikola, Anders Hansson, Mathias Fridahl. Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain: Expert understandings of epistemological uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Futures. 2019; 114 ():102472.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSimon Haikola; Anders Hansson; Mathias Fridahl. 2019. "Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain: Expert understandings of epistemological uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage." Futures 114, no. : 102472.
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.
Simon Haikola; Anders Hansson; Jonas Anshelm. 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 2019, 16, 45 -69.
AMA StyleSimon Haikola, Anders Hansson, Jonas Anshelm. 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. 2019; 16 (1):45-69.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSimon Haikola; Anders Hansson; Jonas Anshelm. 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, no. 1: 45-69.
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 adressed in order to facilitate the planning of CCS projects in the region.
Peter Stigson; Simon Haikola; Anders Hansson; Katarina Buhr. Prospects for Swedish acceptance of carbon dioxide storage in the Baltic Sea: Learning from other energy projects. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology 2016, 6, 188 -196.
AMA StylePeter Stigson, Simon Haikola, Anders Hansson, Katarina Buhr. Prospects for Swedish acceptance of carbon dioxide storage in the Baltic Sea: Learning from other energy projects. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology. 2016; 6 (2):188-196.
Chicago/Turabian StylePeter Stigson; Simon Haikola; Anders Hansson; Katarina Buhr. 2016. "Prospects for Swedish acceptance of carbon dioxide storage in the Baltic Sea: Learning from other energy projects." Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology 6, no. 2: 188-196.
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.
Jonas Anshelm; Anders Hansson. Has the grand idea of geoengineering as Plan B run out of steam? The Anthropocene Review 2015, 3, 64 -74.
AMA StyleJonas Anshelm, Anders Hansson. Has the grand idea of geoengineering as Plan B run out of steam? The Anthropocene Review. 2015; 3 (1):64-74.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonas Anshelm; Anders Hansson. 2015. "Has the grand idea of geoengineering as Plan B run out of steam?" The Anthropocene Review 3, no. 1: 64-74.
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.
Anders Hansson. Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 2014, 11, 125 -142.
AMA StyleAnders Hansson. Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences. 2014; 11 (2):125-142.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAnders Hansson. 2014. "Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world." Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 11, no. 2: 125-142.
Geoengineering, i.e., the deliberate manipulation of the global climate using grand-scale technologies, poses new challenges in terms of environmental risks and human–nature relationships. Until recently, these technologies were considered science fiction, but they are now being reconsidered by researchers, leading to an emerging public debate. Our aim is to improve our understanding of the public discourse on geoengineering in mass media. We analyze 1500 articles published from 2005 to 2013, constructing four coherent storylines that represent most of the geoengineering advocacy in the public discourse in mass media. We scrutinize inconsistencies in this discourse and argue that geoengineering may be the first example of a grand-scale technology that in some important respects has clear postmodern tendencies: geoengineering advocacy, for example, is not based on objective truth claims of the natural sciences and does not promise a better world.
Jonas Anshelm; Anders Hansson. The Last Chance to Save the Planet? An Analysis of the Geoengineering Advocacy Discourse in the Public Debate. Environmental Humanities 2014, 5, 101 -123.
AMA StyleJonas Anshelm, Anders Hansson. The Last Chance to Save the Planet? An Analysis of the Geoengineering Advocacy Discourse in the Public Debate. Environmental Humanities. 2014; 5 (1):101-123.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonas Anshelm; Anders Hansson. 2014. "The Last Chance to Save the Planet? An Analysis of the Geoengineering Advocacy Discourse in the Public Debate." Environmental Humanities 5, no. 1: 101-123.
Before climate change is considered in long-term coastal management, it is necessary to investigate how institutional stakeholders in coastal management conceptualize climate change, as their awareness will ultimately affect their actions. Using questionnaires in eight Baltic Sea riparian countries, this study examines environmental managers’ awareness of climate change. Our results indicate that problems related to global warming are deemed secondary to short-term social and economic issues. Respondents agree that problems caused by global warming will become increasingly important, but pay little attention to adaptation and mitigation strategies. Current environmental problems are expected to continue to be urgent in the future. We conclude that an apparent gap exists between decision making, public concerns, and scientific consensus, resulting in a situation in which the latest evidence rarely influences commonly held opinions.From the issue entitled "Special Issue: ECOSUPPORT – Different Ecosystem Drivers Under Future Climate Scenarios in the Baltic Sea"Ecosuppor
Joanna Piwowarczyk; Anders Hansson; Mattias Hjerpe; Boris Chubarenko; Konstantin Karmanov. Climate Change in the Baltic Sea Region: A Cross-Country Analysis of Institutional Stakeholder Perceptions. Ambio 2012, 41, 645 -655.
AMA StyleJoanna Piwowarczyk, Anders Hansson, Mattias Hjerpe, Boris Chubarenko, Konstantin Karmanov. Climate Change in the Baltic Sea Region: A Cross-Country Analysis of Institutional Stakeholder Perceptions. Ambio. 2012; 41 (6):645-655.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJoanna Piwowarczyk; Anders Hansson; Mattias Hjerpe; Boris Chubarenko; Konstantin Karmanov. 2012. "Climate Change in the Baltic Sea Region: A Cross-Country Analysis of Institutional Stakeholder Perceptions." Ambio 41, no. 6: 645-655.