Sage Publications, Inc
Sage Publications, Inc
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science,
Technology, & Human Values.
http://www.jstor.org
Science, Equity,and
the War against Carbon
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Hull University
The Issue
69
70 Science, Technology,& HumanValues
but nondangerouslevel, while the protocol, not yet in force, proposes net
emission-reduction targets for industrialized countries only. Problems
include how to identify how much-if any-of the predicted warming is
attributableto humanactionandhence amenableto "policy"interventionand
whatto do aboutexpectedfutureemission increasesin developingcountries.
Big science researchcontinuesin a handfulof countries,and its findings are
summarizedfor policy makers at convenient intervalsby the Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Its scientific consensus is said to
"underpin"the Kyoto process.
Negotiationsbased on the assumptionsof humanattributionand danger-
ous futureincreasesin ghgs succeededonly in 2001 in makingrecommenda-
tions on how to implementthe protocol to the first meeting of the partiesto
the protocol.This is to take place in 2002 providedthatthe requiredcondi-
tions are satisfied. The most recent negotiationstook place at the Hague in
2000, in Bonn in 2001, and Marrakeshin 2001 and have greatlydilutedthe
objectives sought by environmentalistsand the EuropeanUnion (EU). The
United States has withdrawnfrom the protocol, and developing countries,
whileseekingaidundertheprotocol,havenotagreedto anyemission-reduction
obligations(EnvironmentalDataServices 2001). The UnitedStates,the larg-
est emitter of ghgs, justifies its position as a principledstand against UN-
dominatedglobal governanceandwith referenceto economic unfairnessand
scientific uncertainty(Bush 2001, 391).2In contrast,the EU and the United
Kingdomremainwholeheartedsupportersof the protocoland do so largely
with reference to science. What is going on scientifically and politically?
Who is likely to gain from emission reduction?
To answerthesequestions,the climateconvention,its protocol,andsubse-
quentnegotiationsare reviewed, and the logic of these efforts is outlined.A
critiquefollows, outliningthe uncertaintiesand assumptionsunderlyingthe
hypothesisof anthropogeniccausation.The institutionalsourceof this scien-
tific consensus,the IPCC,is exploredto understandthe sourcesof its bias and
influence. Economic and equity issues arising from the proposedsolutions
are identified and supportedby an outline of bureaucraticresponses so far
(WorldBank, EU, and United Kingdom).
The Theory
While agreeingthatsocial realityandknowledgeproductionarenot inde-
pendent and that naturalscience cannot be separatedfrom how concrete
materialinterestsare defined, this articleis a plea againstexcessive relativ-
ism or the view of science as mere social construct.The ideal thattruthabout
naturecan be discovered by science should be upheld, if only to protect
/ TheWaragainstCarbon 71
Boehmer-Christiansen
climatehaschangedoverthepastcentury,it is simplysayingtheclimatenowis
notthesameas it wasa centuryago(whatever thecause),whereastheFCCC
listenerwillreasonably sucha statement
interpret as thescientificcommunity
affirmingthathumaninfluence
haschangedclimateoverthepastcentury. (P.v)
Bureaucratic Opportunities
Conclusions
Notes
References
Boehmer-Christiansen,S. A. 1993. Science policy, the IPCC and the climate convention:The
codificationof a global researchagenda.Energy & Environment4 (4): 362-408.
.1994a. Globalclimateprotectionpolicy: The limits of scientific advice-Parts I and II.
Global EnvironmentalChange 4 (2/3): 140-56.
. 1994b. A scientific agendafor climate policy? Nature,p. 372.
. 1995. Britainandthe Intergovernmental Panelon ClimateChange:The impactsof sci-
entific advice on global warming:Integratedpolicy analysisandthe global dimension.Envi-
ronmentalPolitics 4 (1): 1-18.
.1997. A winning coalition of advocacy:Climate research,bureaucracyand "alterna-
tive" fuels. EnergyPolicy 25 (4): 439-44.
.1999. Climatechange andthe WorldBank:Opportunityfor global governance.Energy
& Environment10 (1): 27-50.
.2000. Differentiationsince Kyoto:An explorationof Australianclimatepolicy in com-
parisonto Europe/UK.Energy & Environment11 (3): 343-53.
Boehmer-Christiansen,S. A., and A. Kellow. 2002. The makingof internationalenvironment
policy: Interestsand thefailure of the Kyotoprocess. Cheltenham,UK: Elgar.
Bush, G. W. 2001. Letterfromthe presidentto SenatorsHagel, Helms,CraigandRobers.Energy
& Environment12 (4): 391-92.
Calder,N. 1999. The carbondioxide thermometerand the cause of global warming.Energy &
Environment10 (1): 1-18.
EnvironmentalData Services. 2001. London.KyotoProtocol rulesfinalised (No. 322:53). Lon-
don: EnvironmentalData Services.
Global 2000. 1982. Reportto the president.London:Penguin.
Grubb,M., C. Vrolijk,and D. Brack. 1999. The KyotoProtocol: A guide and assessment. The
Royal Instituteof InternationalAffairs.London:Earthscan.
Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and ValdarOinas. 2000. Global
warmingin the twenty-firstcentury:An alternativescenario.Proceedings of the National
Academyof Sciences USA97:9875-80.
Herring,Horace.2000. How greenis energyefficiency?Special issue. Energy&Environment11
(5).
IntergovernmentalPanel on ClimateChange. 1990. Climatechange 1990. TheIPCC scientific
assessment. First assessmentreport.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress.
.1992. Climate change 1992. Contributionof workinggroup 1 to thefirst assessment
reportofthe IPCC.Firstassessmentreport.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress.
.1994. Radiativeforcingof climatechange.Reportof the ScientificAssessmentWorking
Group,summaryfor policymakers.Bracknell:U.K. MeteorologicalOffice. Availablefrom
http://www.meto.gov.uk/sec5/CR_div/ipcc/wg 1.
.1995. Climate change 1995. The IPCC scientific assessment. Second assessment
report.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress.
. 2001. Climatechange 2001, 3 vols: I (scientificbasis), II (impacts,adaptation,and vul-
nerability),and III(mitigation).Thirdassessmentreports.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUni-
versity Press. Availablefrom www.cip.cam.ac.uk/cais.
Jasanoff,S. 1996. Beyond epistemology:Relativismand engagementin the politics of science.
Social Studies of Science 26 (2): 393-417.
Jepma,Catrinus.1999. Magazine on the Kyoto mechanisms.Magazine on Joint Implementa-
tion, September.
92 Science, Technology,& HumanValues