Keynote Address—Paradox of Trust in Unsettled Times: Can Scientists Speak Truth to Power ?

The phrase, “speak truth to power”, traces back at least to a pamphlet produced in the 1950s. Its central concern was international peace in an age of atomic and hydrogen weapons. In 2018, it has achieved a much broader meaning, including, but not limited to, speaking in defense of scientific theories, hypotheses, and facts that inconvenience people holding political power and authority. The recent letter sent out by members of the U.S. Academy of Sciences demonstrates the challenge of trust in an era when science and nominally democratic government, in the United States at least, are fundamentally at odds

Socio-political dimensions of CCS deployment through the lens of social network analysis

AbstractThe Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED) framework was proposed to improve understanding of energy technology deployment. It was intended to help energy policy-makers develop and implement more effective strategies to accelerate the deployment of emerging energy technologies. The theoretical underpinnings lie in the fields of sustainability science, political science, and risk perception. Part of the objectives of the SPEED framework are to identify the dominant socio-political influences on energy technology decisions and examine how policy can facilitate a societal response to climate change by contributing insights to stakeholders. The focus is at the state level because it is at the state level that emergent energy technologies are sited, permitted, and built. The purpose of this study was to examine the structure of communication about carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology from the perspective of individuals actively involved in decisions that affect deployment and diffusion. We use density of function-system networks to examine differences between states and categories stakeholders. The information is used to inform the discussion of the current structure of communication and how it might present either barriers or opportunities for CCS innovation. Five function systems are used, each divided into benefits (positive) or risks (negative) associated with CCS: Economic benefit (ECP), economic risk (ECN), environmental benefit (ENP), environmental risk (ENN), health and safety benefit (HLP), health and safety risk (HLN), political benefit (POP), political risk (PON), technical benefit (TEP), and technical risk (TEN). An additional category of CCS statements that could not be definitively assigned to one of these categories was included as an ‘other’ category (OTP and OTN). Networks were constructed for all stakeholders, each state, and each stakeholder type based on ties of shared intensity of communication about the particular frame. From these networks, density measurements were calculated and reported. In the case studies presented here, technical risk dominates communication about CCS at the state level. The economic, technical, and political system functions appear to present the greatest barrier due to largely negative communication. This study focuses on how the development of shared meaning creates ties between individuals in a CCS policy network

A comparative state-level analysis of carbon capture and storage (CCS) discourse among U.S. energy stakeholders and the public

AbstractPerceptions of the potential of emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) are constructed not just through technical and economic processes but also through discourse, i.e. through compelling narratives about what a technology is, what a technology might become and why it is needed and preferable to competing technologies. The influence of discourse is particularly important in the innovation phases prior to commercialization when innovation activities are focused on research, development and demonstration, and when feasibility and costs of alternatives systems cannot yet be tested by market dynamics. This paper provides a state-level comparative analysis of CCS discourse in the U.S. to provide insights about the socio-political context in which CCS technology is advancing and being considered in four different states: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, and Texas. This research combines analysis of interviews of state-level energy stakeholders and media analysis of state-level newspapers. In semi-structured interviews, state-level energy policy stakeholders were asked to explain their perceptions of the potential opportunities and risks of CCS technology within their unique state context. Interview texts were coded to assess the frequency and extent of various different frames of CCS opportunities and risks including technical, political, economic, environmental, aesthetic, and health/safety. A similar coding scheme was applied to analysis of state-level newspaper coverage of CCS technology. Here, the frequency of these different framings of CCS opportunities and risks in state-level print media was assessed. This analysis demonstrates wide variation in state-level CCS discourse and perceptions of the potential opportunities and risks associated with CCS technology. This mixed-methods approach to characterizing the socio-political context for CCS advancement in these four states contributes to improved understanding of state-level variation in energy technology innovation, provides valuable information about energy technology development in these specific states, and also offers insight into the very different sub-national discourses associated with emerging low-carbon energy technologies in the U.S

Development of an Urban Watershed Rehabilitation Method Using Stakeholder Feedback to Direct Investigation and Restoration Planning

Includes appendicesThis research was supported by the U.S. EPA Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program under Grant No. R-827147-01-0 and was a project of Texas A&M University's Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy in The Bush School of Government and Public Service.surveyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Grant No. R-827147-01-0

Farmers’ attitudes about farming and the environment: A survey of conventional and organic farmers

Farmers have been characterized as people whose ties to the land have given them a deep awareness of natural cycles, appreciation for natural beauty and sense of responsibility as stewards. At the same time, their relationship to the land has been characterized as more utilitarian than that of others who are less directly dependent on its bounty. This paper explores this tension by comparing the attitudes and beliefs of a group of conventional farmers to those of a group of organic farmers. It was found that while both groups reject the idea that a farmer’s role is to conquer nature, organic farmers were significantly more supportive of the notion that humans should live in harmony with nature. Organic farmers also reported a greater awareness of and appreciation for nature in their relationship with the land. Both groups view independence as a main benefit of farming and a lack of financial reward as its main drawback. Overall, conventional farmers report more stress in their lives although they also view themselves in a caretaker role for the land more than do the organic farmers. In contrast, organic farmers report more satisfaction with their lives, a greater concern for living ethically, and a stronger perception of community. Finally, both groups are willing to have their rights limited (organic farmers somewhat more so) but they do not trust the government to do so.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83671/1/Sullivan,_S.,_E._McCann,_R._De_Young_&_D._Erickson_(1996)._Farmers_attitudes_about_farming_and_the_environment,_JAEE,_9,_123-143.pd

A Rhetorical Critique of 'Nonmarket' Economic Valuations for Natural Resources

Various 'nonmarket' economic valuation methods have been used to compute 'total' value of nonmarketed natural resources and related recreation. We first outline the history of these valuation techniques and use the Exxon Valdez disaster response and the valuation of whooping cranes, an endangered species, as examples of how these tools can constrain policy. We then explain how, by excluding non-economic social spheres, economic valuation techniques produce a terministic screen that deforms policy makers' vision of the ecological problems faced by society. Using Luhmann's functionalist social theory, we demonstrate that when natural resource managers privilege economic motives, they trivialize other social functions such as education, politics, religion and law. This process presents a significant ethical dilemma for democracies by first naturalizing, then ethicizing, existing patterns of domination.environmental ethics, functionalism, natural resources, nonmarket economic valuation, rhetorical criticism, wildlife