Search
Enlarge Text | Printable Version | Sitemap | Contact us
Research
Upcoming events
Researcher Name: Pietro Berti Affiliated Staff: Sabina Leonelli (Egenis – University of Exeter), Brian Rappert (University of Exeter) Project Start Date: 01.10.2009 Project End Date: 30.09.2012 Contact Details: pb277@exeter.ac.uk Funder: University of Exeter Background: Case Study: The case study of my research is the policy debate around the sustainability of liquid biofuels in the United Kingdom. The UK policy effort in implementing a transition to a sustainable transport system grounds on the recognition of the existence of climate change and its link with human activity. The UK transport system relies almost entirely on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are predicted to become increasingly scarce and costly in the next few decades (The_Royal_Society 14.1.2008; p. 1, 5). Furthermore, their use for energy purposes is blamed as the major human contribution to climate change (IPPC 17.11.2007; p.36). Liquid biofuels technologies can process a wide range of organic material (biomass) and convert it into fuels which can be used to substitute fossil fuels. Liquid biofuels are debated with respect to their potential in providing a sustainable solution for mitigating climate change by substituting fossil fuels in the transport system. The analysis narrows the focus on the actors participating to specific rhetorical spaces (van Lente and Rip 1998; p.222-223) that public authorities set up when informing about their biofuels policies. A rhetorical space should be here interpreted as a space where different actors exchange statements on technologies in order to influence the perception of their audience on those technologies. I conceptualise public authorities’ official correspondences, public calls for evidence and consultations as specific rhetorical spaces where different actors attempt to establish their own representations of facts and technologies over those of others.The analysis focuses on the original responses of the consultation (see below note 1) launched by the Department for Transport (DfT 15.10.2008) on 15 October 2008 and on the official correspondence (House_of_Commons 21.1.2008) between the UK Government and the Environmental Audit Committee (see below note 2), starting 21 January 2008. It investigates how the various actors involved in those events have represented expectations on biofuels technologies and specific facts destabilising the public image of biofuels. By public image of biofuels, I refer to the judgement of public authorities’ voters about the sustainability and acceptability of these technologies. In the specific period considered, the debate on biofuels was discussed both at the national and international level with the involvement of mass media. Context: “The increasingly stark conclusions on the prospects for climate change, together with developments on supply and price of fossil fuels, are key drivers for improved use of sustainable renewable energy” (DEFRA 27.4.2006; Foreword) . Transport accounts for about 25% of greenhouse gasses (GHG) emissions in the United Kingdom (The_Royal_Society 14.1.2008; p.1) and is the only sector in the UK economy where CO2 emissions have been rising consistently since 1990 (House_of_Commons 7.8.2006; p.16). Liquid biofuels have been viewed by the UK Government as one of the few short-medium term options to reduce emissions and substitute fossil fuels in transport and also as a solution for enhancing rural development and fuel security. The UK Government has advanced those reasons to justify its support for the technologies, since its first financial intervention in 2002 in the form of a duty exemption for biodiesel. Since then, concerns over the direct and indirect negative effects that the large scale production of biofuels could generate in developing countries have gradually evolved into a heated debate on the real sustainability of these technologies. The extensive land requirements needed in the cultivation of the agricultural feedstocks used in biofuels production imply land competition with alternative uses of agricultural land. Agricultural land competition would eventually worsen social conditions in developing countries, induce deforestation and add pressure on food prices. The debate on biofuels technologies’ sustainability reached a negative peak during the food crisis of 2008. National and international biofuels policies were accused of causing deforestation, famine and land grabbing in developing countries. In that same year, the UK Government decided to slow down its support for biofuels technologies in response to the mounting pressure on its biofuels policies. Analytical Focus: My analysis focuses on how deforestation, food security issues and the worsening of social conditions in developing countries have been represented by the actors participating to the consultation and official correspondence selected. Those facts are here defined as destabilising facts with respect to biofuels policies. The term ‘destabilising’ refers to the power that those specific facts have had in changing the perceptions of the audience of public authorities about the policies supporting the technologies. Deforestation, food price increases and worsening of social conditions in developing countries have already destabilised and might further undermine the current supporting policy on biofuels. Aims and Objectives: When public authorities publish official documents containing information on technologies, they act as intermediaries between experts in technologies and their non-expert audience of voters. In those official documents, public authorities use accounts of information on technologies to justify their interventions in emerging technologies. Essentially, those accounts are directed to a generalised audience of non-experts and might be though as a standardised message for an undefined audience of voters. Depending on their visibility and the trust they have been able to gain from their voters, public authorities and their accounts of information on technologies are likely to exert a relevant influence in the process of consensus formation. The ultimate aim of this research is to investigate how the intermediation operated by public authorities with their written official publications might eventually affect the circulation of relevant information on technologies and they way in which it is represented and proposed to the large audience of voters.The analysis of the content of information on technologies at the public authorities’ level should include considerations of the logics sustaining their exchange within the network of actors directly interacting with them. In my research, I attempt to elaborate a conceptual framework that might provide useful generalisations explaining the incentives of the heterogeneous actors that participate to that exchange and how those incentives might affect the content of their accounts of information on technologies. Particular attention will be paid on how actors use information about themselves to instil trust in their respective audience in their attempt to build a reputation as reliable and expert source of information on technologies. Reputation is here assumed as an essential element for the successful exchange of relevant information on technologies. More specifically, I investigate how public authorities and of the actors interacting with them manage reputation and how their reputations affect their incentives in distorting information. Research Methods: The analysis constitutes two parts. The first part consists of a documentary analysis of the original responses and websites of the participants to a consultation on biofuels policy launched by the Department for Transport on 15 October 2008. This analysis will compare the way in which the UK Government and the consultation’s participants have represented the same destabilising facts and technological expectations regarding biofuels in their responses and websites. Through that comparison, it should be possible to assess the actors’ interests in collaborating in the promotion of specific technologies or in reporting accounts favouring specific interpretations of facts and technological expectations in general. Addressing these issues implies extending the analysis through an investigation of the context in which these exchanges occur; the nature of the actors involved; their interrelations with other actors; their possible accountability in front of other actors; the different roles assumed in the exchange; and the uses that these actors might make of statements made about technologies. The second part consists of a documentary analysis of the official correspondence between the UK Government and the Environmental Audit Committee, starting 21 January 2008. It is investigated how the UK Government and the Environmental Audit Committee have represented the same destabilising facts analysed in the first part of the analysis in their official correspondence. This analysis will compare the way in which the UK Government and the Environmental Audit Committee have represented the same destabilising facts and technological expectations regarding biofuels in their official publications. Through that comparison, it should be possible to assess how the level of accountability for previous policies affects the representations of facts and technologies chosen by public authorities. The UK Government is here considered as the most accountable public authority for biofuels policies, while the Environmental Audit Committee is considered as an authoritative policy adviser. Notes: Note 1: A consultation is a collection of views about policies organised by the pertinent governmental department in that area of policy. It is constituted of a specific list of questions and is open to anyone interested to participate. Note 2: The Environmental Audit Committee is a select committee of the UK Parliament: “The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House.” (House_of_Commons 2008-01-21). Are biofuels sustainable? - volume I - 1st Report Session 2007-2008 - Environmental Audit Committee, Environmental Audit Committee References: DEFRA (2006-04-27): The Government’s Response to the Biomass Task Force Report, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) DfT (2008-10-15): Consultation on Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (Amendment) Order 2009, Department for Transport (DFT) House_of_Commons (2006-08-07): Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport - volume I - 9th report Session 2005-2006 - Environmental Audit Committee Environmental Audit Committee House_of_Commons (2008-01-21): Are biofuels sustainable? - volume I - 1st Report Session 2007-2008 - Environmental Audit Committee, Environmental Audit Committee IPPC (2007-11-17): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) The_Royal_Society (2008-01-14): Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges, The Royal Society van Lente, H. and A. Rip (1998). 'The Rise of Membrane Technology: From Rhetorics to Social Reality.' Social Studies of Science 28(2): 221-254. Key Findings: Wider implications for policy: Project Update: Publications: External Links: Further information:
pb277@exeter.ac.uk
Case Study:
The case study of my research is the policy debate around the sustainability of liquid biofuels in the United Kingdom. The UK policy effort in implementing a transition to a sustainable transport system grounds on the recognition of the existence of climate change and its link with human activity. The UK transport system relies almost entirely on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are predicted to become increasingly scarce and costly in the next few decades (The_Royal_Society 14.1.2008; p. 1, 5). Furthermore, their use for energy purposes is blamed as the major human contribution to climate change (IPPC 17.11.2007; p.36). Liquid biofuels technologies can process a wide range of organic material (biomass) and convert it into fuels which can be used to substitute fossil fuels. Liquid biofuels are debated with respect to their potential in providing a sustainable solution for mitigating climate change by substituting fossil fuels in the transport system.
The analysis narrows the focus on the actors participating to specific rhetorical spaces (van Lente and Rip 1998; p.222-223) that public authorities set up when informing about their biofuels policies. A rhetorical space should be here interpreted as a space where different actors exchange statements on technologies in order to influence the perception of their audience on those technologies. I conceptualise public authorities’ official correspondences, public calls for evidence and consultations as specific rhetorical spaces where different actors attempt to establish their own representations of facts and technologies over those of others.The analysis focuses on the original responses of the consultation (see below note 1) launched by the Department for Transport (DfT 15.10.2008) on 15 October 2008 and on the official correspondence (House_of_Commons 21.1.2008) between the UK Government and the Environmental Audit Committee (see below note 2), starting 21 January 2008. It investigates how the various actors involved in those events have represented expectations on biofuels technologies and specific facts destabilising the public image of biofuels. By public image of biofuels, I refer to the judgement of public authorities’ voters about the sustainability and acceptability of these technologies. In the specific period considered, the debate on biofuels was discussed both at the national and international level with the involvement of mass media.
Context:
“The increasingly stark conclusions on the prospects for climate change, together with developments on supply and price of fossil fuels, are key drivers for improved use of sustainable renewable energy” (DEFRA 27.4.2006; Foreword) . Transport accounts for about 25% of greenhouse gasses (GHG) emissions in the United Kingdom (The_Royal_Society 14.1.2008; p.1) and is the only sector in the UK economy where CO2 emissions have been rising consistently since 1990 (House_of_Commons 7.8.2006; p.16). Liquid biofuels have been viewed by the UK Government as one of the few short-medium term options to reduce emissions and substitute fossil fuels in transport and also as a solution for enhancing rural development and fuel security. The UK Government has advanced those reasons to justify its support for the technologies, since its first financial intervention in 2002 in the form of a duty exemption for biodiesel. Since then, concerns over the direct and indirect negative effects that the large scale production of biofuels could generate in developing countries have gradually evolved into a heated debate on the real sustainability of these technologies. The extensive land requirements needed in the cultivation of the agricultural feedstocks used in biofuels production imply land competition with alternative uses of agricultural land. Agricultural land competition would eventually worsen social conditions in developing countries, induce deforestation and add pressure on food prices. The debate on biofuels technologies’ sustainability reached a negative peak during the food crisis of 2008. National and international biofuels policies were accused of causing deforestation, famine and land grabbing in developing countries. In that same year, the UK Government decided to slow down its support for biofuels technologies in response to the mounting pressure on its biofuels policies.
Analytical Focus:
My analysis focuses on how deforestation, food security issues and the worsening of social conditions in developing countries have been represented by the actors participating to the consultation and official correspondence selected. Those facts are here defined as destabilising facts with respect to biofuels policies. The term ‘destabilising’ refers to the power that those specific facts have had in changing the perceptions of the audience of public authorities about the policies supporting the technologies. Deforestation, food price increases and worsening of social conditions in developing countries have already destabilised and might further undermine the current supporting policy on biofuels.
When public authorities publish official documents containing information on technologies, they act as intermediaries between experts in technologies and their non-expert audience of voters. In those official documents, public authorities use accounts of information on technologies to justify their interventions in emerging technologies. Essentially, those accounts are directed to a generalised audience of non-experts and might be though as a standardised message for an undefined audience of voters. Depending on their visibility and the trust they have been able to gain from their voters, public authorities and their accounts of information on technologies are likely to exert a relevant influence in the process of consensus formation. The ultimate aim of this research is to investigate how the intermediation operated by public authorities with their written official publications might eventually affect the circulation of relevant information on technologies and they way in which it is represented and proposed to the large audience of voters.The analysis of the content of information on technologies at the public authorities’ level should include considerations of the logics sustaining their exchange within the network of actors directly interacting with them. In my research, I attempt to elaborate a conceptual framework that might provide useful generalisations explaining the incentives of the heterogeneous actors that participate to that exchange and how those incentives might affect the content of their accounts of information on technologies. Particular attention will be paid on how actors use information about themselves to instil trust in their respective audience in their attempt to build a reputation as reliable and expert source of information on technologies. Reputation is here assumed as an essential element for the successful exchange of relevant information on technologies. More specifically, I investigate how public authorities and of the actors interacting with them manage reputation and how their reputations affect their incentives in distorting information.
The analysis constitutes two parts.
The first part consists of a documentary analysis of the original responses and websites of the participants to a consultation on biofuels policy launched by the Department for Transport on 15 October 2008. This analysis will compare the way in which the UK Government and the consultation’s participants have represented the same destabilising facts and technological expectations regarding biofuels in their responses and websites. Through that comparison, it should be possible to assess the actors’ interests in collaborating in the promotion of specific technologies or in reporting accounts favouring specific interpretations of facts and technological expectations in general. Addressing these issues implies extending the analysis through an investigation of the context in which these exchanges occur; the nature of the actors involved; their interrelations with other actors; their possible accountability in front of other actors; the different roles assumed in the exchange; and the uses that these actors might make of statements made about technologies.
The second part consists of a documentary analysis of the official correspondence between the UK Government and the Environmental Audit Committee, starting 21 January 2008. It is investigated how the UK Government and the Environmental Audit Committee have represented the same destabilising facts analysed in the first part of the analysis in their official correspondence. This analysis will compare the way in which the UK Government and the Environmental Audit Committee have represented the same destabilising facts and technological expectations regarding biofuels in their official publications. Through that comparison, it should be possible to assess how the level of accountability for previous policies affects the representations of facts and technologies chosen by public authorities. The UK Government is here considered as the most accountable public authority for biofuels policies, while the Environmental Audit Committee is considered as an authoritative policy adviser.
Notes:
Note 1: A consultation is a collection of views about policies organised by the pertinent governmental department in that area of policy. It is constituted of a specific list of questions and is open to anyone interested to participate.
Note 2: The Environmental Audit Committee is a select committee of the UK Parliament: “The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House.” (House_of_Commons 2008-01-21). Are biofuels sustainable? - volume I - 1st Report Session 2007-2008 - Environmental Audit Committee, Environmental Audit Committee
References:
DEFRA (2006-04-27): The Government’s Response to the Biomass Task Force Report, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
DfT (2008-10-15): Consultation on Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (Amendment) Order 2009, Department for Transport (DFT)
House_of_Commons (2006-08-07): Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport - volume I - 9th report Session 2005-2006 - Environmental Audit Committee Environmental Audit Committee House_of_Commons (2008-01-21): Are biofuels sustainable? - volume I - 1st Report Session 2007-2008 - Environmental Audit Committee, Environmental Audit Committee IPPC (2007-11-17): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) The_Royal_Society (2008-01-14): Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges, The Royal Society van Lente, H. and A. Rip (1998). 'The Rise of Membrane Technology: From Rhetorics to Social Reality.' Social Studies of Science 28(2): 221-254.
