Who is communicating carbon capture, transport and storage (CCS) in Norway? This article is an analysis of the Norwegian newspaper landscape regarding the medialization of carbon capture, transport and storage. Mass communication is essential to achieve broad publicity and familiarity, but is CCS fairly communicated? I try to examine how visible the general public is in the debate surrounding CCS and what impression the general public gets by reading articles about the technology. Is the newspaper debate only a political debate about candidates of opposing parties or high cost implications? Is it just a technical debate about feasibility and experimental plants? Or does the debate maybe also initiate a public dialogue on CCS technologies in order to engage the public and key stakeholders? Is public engagement acknowledged as a requisite for gaining public acceptance and promoting the successful development of the technology? Is there a need for socializing science or scientising society?

The results shall help to improve the effectiveness of policy measures as well as the choice of targets for policy initiatives. Ironically, the historical absence of fossil- based power in Norway makes CCS looking in some ways misplaced. Nevertheless CCS has a unique role in Norway and was right from the beginning a policy tool. The Norwegian government, with Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg in the front line, promotes carbon capture as a highly promising option for CO2 emission reduction. Demonstration plants are one important step in this development, like Mongstad. But Mongstad, as a symbol for CO2 free power plant is affected by postponement and being a bottomless pit of taxpayers money. There is a significant gap between CCS policies, CCS feasibility and CCS in its meaning for the general public. To bridge the gap between all participants I will introduce the concept of Ò‘socialization of scientific and technological research.

We are able to identify at least three aspects of socialisation: “Translation” (Latour 1987), public understanding of science and technology (PUST, see Yearley 2005) and public engagement with/in science and technology (PEST, see Irwin & Wynne 1996).

">
 [PCST]
PCST Network

Public Communication of Science and Technology

 

Imagine lay people in the case of ccs in norway

Alexandra Klimek   NTNU - Department of interdisciplinary studies of culture/ CenSES

Who is communicating carbon capture, transport and storage (CCS) in Norway? This article is an analysis of the Norwegian newspaper landscape regarding the medialization of carbon capture, transport and storage. Mass communication is essential to achieve broad publicity and familiarity, but is CCS fairly communicated? I try to examine how visible the general public is in the debate surrounding CCS and what impression the general public gets by reading articles about the technology. Is the newspaper debate only a political debate about candidates of opposing parties or high cost implications? Is it just a technical debate about feasibility and experimental plants? Or does the debate maybe also initiate a public dialogue on CCS technologies in order to engage the public and key stakeholders? Is public engagement acknowledged as a requisite for gaining public acceptance and promoting the successful development of the technology? Is there a need for socializing science or scientising society?

The results shall help to improve the effectiveness of policy measures as well as the choice of targets for policy initiatives. Ironically, the historical absence of fossil- based power in Norway makes CCS looking in some ways misplaced. Nevertheless CCS has a unique role in Norway and was right from the beginning a policy tool. The Norwegian government, with Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg in the front line, promotes carbon capture as a highly promising option for CO2 emission reduction. Demonstration plants are one important step in this development, like Mongstad. But Mongstad, as a symbol for CO2 free power plant is affected by postponement and being a bottomless pit of taxpayers money. There is a significant gap between CCS policies, CCS feasibility and CCS in its meaning for the general public. To bridge the gap between all participants I will introduce the concept of Ò‘socialization of scientific and technological research.

We are able to identify at least three aspects of socialisation: “Translation” (Latour 1987), public understanding of science and technology (PUST, see Yearley 2005) and public engagement with/in science and technology (PEST, see Irwin & Wynne 1996).

A copy of the full paper has not yet been submitted.

BACK TO TOP