Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 | P a g e
Image Reference: Large Hadron Collider closer to discovering God particle. No photographer.,2011
Colliding stories ;
How are discourses in ocean acidification subsumed in
climate change?
Approximate word count: 15,788 (excluding quotations, tables, figures and appendices)
Maisie Paddon (12705074)
MSc, Climate Change Management
Birkbeck College, University of London
2013
2 | P a g e
Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 5
Rationale and significance of study ............................................................................................... 6
Contribution of this study to research............................................................................................ 7
Research approach .......................................................................................................................... 8
Research aims and methods ........................................................................................................ 11
Further research ............................................................................................................................. 12
Research questions and sub-questions...................................................................................... 12
Chapter 3 Literature review .............................................................................................................. 16
Climate narratives .......................................................................................................................... 16
Narrative A: climate system as regulated ............................................................................... 16
Narrative B: climate perturbed .................................................................................................. 18
Narrative C: runaway climate, out of control. Mass extinction events. ............................. 20
Cultural practices ............................................................................................................................ 21
RUG social practices ................................................................................................................. 24
Denier communities ................................................................................................................... 25
Different worldviews ................................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 4 Methods............................................................................................................................. 34
Overview of study ........................................................................................................................... 34
Methods and linguistic devices .................................................................................................... 35
Overall research aims .................................................................................................................... 37
Action research: Justification for chosen methods and rationale for research design ....... 38
Limitations of study and further areas for research ......................................................................... 40
Empirical research strategy, research design and procedures ............................................... 41
Developmental research phases ............................................................................................. 42
(Constructed by researcher) ..................................................................................................... 42
Overcoming researcher bias ........................................................................................................ 49
Participant selection and introduction of participants ............................................................... 50
Chapter 5 Data coding ....................................................................................................................... 61
Data collection and coding procedures ....................................................................................... 61
Data analysis and rationale for codes ......................................................................................... 63
3 | P a g e
Data coding ..................................................................................................................................... 72
Data reliability ................................................................................................................................. 72
Chapter 6 Results and discussion ................................................................................................... 73
Overview of study ........................................................................................................................... 73
Introduction, geo-engineering definitions.................................................................................... 74
Geo-engineering discussion ......................................................................................................... 85
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 89
References .......................................................................................................................................... 91
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 106
Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 106
Coded mappings examples reflecting value cognitions of Marine Scientists ..................... 106
Marine scientist A; coded mappings from interview meeting reflects individual cognitions,
values and belief systems. .......................................................................................................... 107
Marine scientist D; coded mappings from interview meeting reflects individual cognitions,
values and belief systems. .......................................................................................................... 110
Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 111
Interview transcript, Marine Scientist F ..................................................................................... 111
Appendix 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 126
Data dictionaries ........................................................................................................................... 126
Dictionaries Type 1 ...................................................................................................................... 127
Dictionary Type 2 ........................................................................................................................ 129
Dictionaries Type 3 ...................................................................................................................... 143
Appendix 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 148
Narrative reconstructions; Marine Scientist A solution pathway ........................................... 148
4 | P a g e
Acknowledgements With special thanks to Carol Turley, Dan Laffoley, David Santillo, Kristian Teleki,
and Phil Williamson for sharing their knowledge and experience with me,
instrumental in shaping this thesis. Further thanks extended to Kezia Barker
for her guidance and friends and family for their patience and encouragement
during this process.
5 | P a g e
Chapter 1 Abstract
Like climate change, ocean acidification is a globally complex problem caused
by increasing atmospheric CO2 as a result of human consequences from
carbon intensive social practices. Using inductive discourse methods and
thematic analysis, this study examines the complex interplay of social ideas
using Hajer’s storyline framework as the method of choice to draw
comparisons between narrative features in ocean acidification and climate
change discourses and identifies whether ocean acidification is characterised
together or separately from climate change as a result of new storylines. Any
separation may not only benefit ocean acidification but may also alter the
current resolution pathway for climate change. Interview research drives
emergent narrative themes which are configured using data coding categories.
The number of categories is limited partly by design to make it easier to
interpret and analyse interview participant viewpoints and their corresponding
storylines. Narratives are contextualised into three emergent themes with
focus on political, technological and social pathways, with particular focus on
storylines that are energised and routinised by participants through social
everyday practice.
6 | P a g e
Chapter 2 Introduction
Rationale and significance of study
Ocean acidification is a complex, globally significant problem which is found to
affect shell forming organisms across different parts of the global oceans, as a
result of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) entering the ocean
(Turley and Gattuso 2012).
Human practices are responsible (Uury 2010a) for changing ocean chemistry,
impacting the health and lifespan of marine organisms at the base of the food
chain. Effects are cascading through the biological phylum, changing whole
ecosystems. Such changes are known as regime shifts, which result in
surpassing ecosystem thresholds (considered dangerous tipping points which
affect the health of biodiversity). Changes in atmospheric CO2 trigger
sensitivities internal within the climate system, amplifying problems that are
either already present or manifest as new ones. Ocean acidification is a result
of one such climate feedback process (Tyrell 2007). When CO2 enters the
ocean two chemical reactions, occur increasing the concentration of hydrogen
ions leading to acidity. Ocean pH has been decreasing since the 1990’s,
concentration of hydrogen ions have increased by 30% affecting the immune
systems and metabolic rates of marine organisms. In addition, the availability
of carbonate ions has decreased affecting the ability for marine organisms to
form shells (Turley 2011, Kerrison, Hall-Spencer, Suggett et al 2011).
Unfortunately, this situation is likely to worsen, with predictions of mass
extinction events ricocheting throughout the food chain (Ridgwell and Schmidt
7 | P a g e
2010). Some scientists claim that such events are already occurring in both
northern and southern hemispheres (Gattuso, Bijma, Gehelen, et al 2011,
Turley, Findlay, Mangi et al 2009).
This research study analyses discourses in ocean acidification and climate
change and where they collide. As ocean acidification is still in its infancy, it is
not yet clear how the policy response to the problem will playout. Despite
global political attention, using CO2 as its underlying currency in negotiating
change, climate governance remains dogged by splintered coalition groups
with competing conceptions. Climate governance architecture remains
fractious and a global response to the problem disproportionate (Daniels and
Endfield on Cronan 2009; Biermann, Pattberg and Zelli 2010:25-33). Behaviour
change programmes as well as attention gained in popular culture through
novels, film and as news items, has not brought about actions that are
required in tackling the problem of climate change. This is unsettling for
academics, researching ocean acidification and attempting to learn from
climate change policy negotiations (marine scientist E 2012; McNagten 2011).
Contribution of this study to research
This study commits to learning about the production of narrative discourses,
reflected in the values of the ocean acidification scientific community. All
scientists are linked with UK policy making and some are ensconced with
international policy making organisations for climate change including the
UNFCCC and the Convention for Biological Diversity. It is hoped that by
comparing ocean acidification narrative discourses with those that have
8 | P a g e
occurred for climate change, will illuminate areas of benefit and concern within
the main themes.
Research approach
Hajer’s narrative framework provides an approach in understanding the
dynamics of different coalition groups with competing narrative plotlines
conveying different points of view (Hajer 2000, Fischer 2003). This approach
may give insights into how the ocean acidification problem has come to be
diagnosed and its’ likely pathway in attempting to find a cure. There is
currently a gap in our understanding of how the ocean acidification policy
response is likely to transpire, who will take responsibility for the problem and
the likely course of action for the UK. This study seeks to fill that gap.
Dominant discourses and concepts in ocean acidification are analysed and
compared with those in climate change, to establish how and to what extent
they are subsumed together. Further review of climate change narratives are
analysed in Chapter 3, Literature Review and Chapters 6, Results and
Discussion.
It is hoped that this study will provide a basis in understanding possible policy
pathways for ocean acidification and a lessons learned background in
preparation for primary research.
Chapter 3, Literature Review, part one review three climate narrative scenarios
to assess discourses about ocean acidification and any linkages with climate
change where narratives collide, that could be indicative of treatment
9 | P a g e
pathways leading to cure for ocean acidification. Within the context of these
climate scenarios, Hajer’s linguistic devices (storylines, metaphors and images
or emblems), are used as analytical tools to identify storylines used by
different parties in discussing ocean acidification at the scientific level and how
could they influence societal or policy change (Hajer 2000).
These scenarios can be represented as regulated, perturbed and runaway
climate. By fleshing out such accounts demonstrates how scientists often
unconsciously create propositional storylines that diagnose and frame complex
problems such as climate science into categories which may resonate among
respective social groups, though these groups may understand scenarios
differently depending on their experience (Clarke, 2010:33-34. Hajer 2000:53-
54:58-63 Hulme 2012:72-105). The nature of climate science (ocean
acidification and climate change) is multi-interpretive. It draws from a
multitude of academic disciplines in natural and social sciences, where actors
often diagnose problem and solution pathways differently by routinely
contributing their own set of meanings to a particular discussion, reflecting
differently held conceptions of what they believe to be risky or socially just
(Hulme 2012:103-140:142-176:182-207:211-247).
Actors battle through debate and rational argument with their own conception
of what they believe to be a true reflection of the situation. It is these different
perspectives, which actors bring to debate. By selecting, qualifying and
harmonising thoughts and ‘positioning’ other actors in certain ways, can help
to render discursive order and categorise or frame it accordingly (Hajer
10 | P a g e
2000:53 on Harre and Billig). Corresponding storylines used by these different
groups are instrumental in shaping cognitive beliefs within certain societal
groups. Through discursive fragmentation and routinised storylines reinforce
particular practices or points of view, altering cognitive patterns whilst
sometimes shaping or revising the terms of normative discourse. This brings
about ideological permanence or transformation of new ideas of reality where
particular discourses or framings become dominant and new coalitions form
bringing new identities and relational understandings where social change
emerges. This stems from Foucault’s approach to discourses, where he refers
to the “play of discontinuities” within and between discourses. He says that
discourse exchanges between coalitions “render the apparent polymorphous
interweaving of correlations”, which brings about inter-discursive struggles as
well as new understandings and social change (Hajer 2000:47, 52, 66 on
Foucault; Dean, 1999).
Chapter 3, Literature Review, second part further reviews the importance of
cultural practices in influencing likely action pathway.
Chapter 3, Literature Review, part three analyses climate change policy, to
establish why a unified and measured response has not occurred, despite years
of negotiation between nation-states. It is through interactive agency and
social practices and inherent rules that discursive themes in climate change
have been energised and sustained, producing and routinely reproducing
them. Such storyline themes provide insights into possible pathways for ocean
acidification that could suffer the same fate. Here, dominant and competing
narratives acting as interweaving enablers or barriers to climate change are
highlighted.
11 | P a g e
Research aims and methods
Inductive methods in Chapters 4 and 5 are used to drive out the research
problem and questions. Grounded theory methodology provides an approach
for initial assessment of the major themes combined with desk research to
gather information about ocean acidification (Hajer 2006).
This approach expedites the research process, identifies problem areas and
hence leads to initial research questions outlined at the back of this chapter.
Qualitative interviews with expert participants and thematic analysis are used
to review storyline discourses and propositional orientation to investigate
whether storyline themes in climate change discourses are likely to eclipse
discourses in ocean acidification or whether ocean acidification brings fresh
storylines which may affect social change.
Expert participants, from organisations within government and conservation,
are mostly marine scientific researchers and policymakers with a working
knowledge of ocean acidification and climate change issues. It is thought that
the designated sample is a good representation of experts working at policy
level.
Interviews on separate occasions with a sample of three sets of participants’
enable early identification for the classification and coding of key themes,
particularly where discourses about mitigation are concerned. An initial
reconstruction of emergent and existing storylines aims to highlight projected
12 | P a g e
action pathways as similar to current pathways or as distinct. Such
reconstructions are analysed and compared with data collected from further
interviews conducted with participants (Bernard and Ryan, 2010; Fischer
2010). Three data coding dictionaries from resulting from data coding are
embedded in Appendix 3 and support the overall data analysis.
Further research
Narratives are contextualised into different interpretive storylines with basic
features that focus on political, technological and social categories, integral in
understanding policy pathways for ocean acidification. However, further
analysis could be conducted to determine the effects of the storylines in this
study using quantitative and/ or qualitative techniques.
This study does not address societal values reflected in localised narrative
discourses and neither does it reflect policy narrative discourses at EU or global
levels. Both would be fascinating areas of study, informing knowledge about
cultural differences and values in ocean acidification and perceived areas of
concern to specific societal groups, which could lead to revised action
pathways.
Research questions and sub-questions Overarching question:
How are discourses for ocean acidification subsumed in climate change?
Research sub-questions:
Themes and categories for analysis
Secondary research (literature review) • Are they subsumed?
• Are discourses for ocean subsumed in climate discourses?
• What does the language reveal and what narratives are used to describe ocean and climate?
13 | P a g e
• What categories are used to describe ocean and climate and how does the narrative function?
• If they are subsumed, then how are the following categories understood by different academic, policy and societal groups?
• What do science narratives reveal? - (a) Are there bio-geophysical
links between ocean and atmosphere? Do bio-geophysical changes affect the composition of ocean or atmosphere?
- (b) How do changes in composition of atmospheric carbon and GHG’s affect ocean and biosphere?
- (c) How does this affect discourses about ocean acidification?
• If they are subsumed, then to what extent are ocean discourses subsumed in climate?
• Is ocean (acidification) and climate (change) linked?
• What language is used to describe the links between the two?
• How do narratives function for ocean (acidification) and climate (change)? - Are they similar?
• How do cultural values affect discourses about ocean and climate?
• How do cultural values affect discourses about ocean and climate? Is language formalised differently to communicate to different groups? - What storylines are used? How are they framed? What is being said? What is not being said? Is there a dominant ideology among coalition groups? - Are there competing storylines that reflect the way in which actors conceive the problem or the way in which they evaluate risk? - Does this affect the way in which
different groups diagnose the problem?
- Does it affect their preferred action pathway to cure?
Social practices • Do social practices affect the way
in which specific groups diagnose the problem?
• Are there any social practices that deviate from the institutional norm? How does this influence/
14 | P a g e
mobilise groups into action? • How does social position affect
the way in which a problem or sol is believed? (eg level of expertise of the speaker)
• How is knowledge constructed and how does this determine problem diagnosis and likely solution pathway?
New narratives • Why are new storylines
needed? • What changes could they
invoke? • How could this inform policy
setting initiatives? Primary research (data analysis) Current state pathway
• To what extent do ocean acidification and climate change solution pathways collide?
• What discourses are used by different coalition groups researching ocean acidification?
• What are the dominant themes from interviews?
• What narratives are used to describe the solution pathway for ocean acidification and climate change?
• How does the language used affect the likely of the solution pathway to occur?
• How do narratives function? Are they similar?
• How are they reflected in current literature within the public domain?
• Are there inter-discursive tensions between coalition groups for ocean acidification?
• How is this likely to affect preferred action pathways?
• Which climate change storylines are useful in sustaining to benefit ocean acidification? Which ones are problematic?
• Is language formalised differently to communicate to different groups? What storylines are used? How are they framed? What is being said? What is not being said?
• Is there a dominant ideology among coalition groups? - Competing storylines that convey diff conceptions of risk? Does this affect the way in which diff groups diagnose the problem?
15 | P a g e
Does it affect their preferred action pathway to cure?
Primary research (data analysis) Alternate state pathway
• How could this affect the likely policy outcome?
• Is it possible or necessary to attempt
to separate colliding storylines where ocean acidification and climate change are framed together?
• Would a separation be useful to ocean acidification policymaking?
• Could involving other coalition groups offer value in production of new knowledge for policymaking in ocean acidification?
Table 1: Research sub-questions, themes and categories for analysis
16 | P a g e
Chapter 3 Literature review
Climate narratives
All narratives have a beginning, middle and end indicative of time, location and
context. (Fischer 2003). Climate scenarios are designed to journey the reader
through existing paradigms for climate and ocean science to discover whether
discourses for ocean are in fact subsumed in atmospheric discourses of
climate, what language reveals and how it functions.
Narrative A: climate system as regulated
Gaia storyline
Over long climate timescales of more than 100,000 years, there are chemical
and physical processes that interact and regulate climate. During this time,
there is a natural climate balance within earth’s system that is regulated
through the in-gassing and out-gassing of carbon dioxide (CO2) through air,
land and sea-flux. Spewing volcanoes naturally produce an outgassing of
CO2, which is imbibed by organic matter. On land, vegetation absorbs CO2
from the atmosphere (Watson, Metzl and Schuster, 2011).
There is an intimate connection between sea-surface and atmosphere; surface
waters, when supersaturated with calcium carbonate minerals under a climate
regulated narrative, affect the rate at which marine organisms form shells.
Some organisms that symbolise the ocean acidification storyline are made
from carbonate which plays a role in ocean pH and regulation. Carbonate
forms either calcite, which coccolithophores creatures (plankton algae and
molluscs) use in building shells, or Aragonite, the mineral deposit in most
corals and molluscs (such as pteropods and small plankton like snails.) (Turley,
Findlay, Mangi, Ridgwell, et al, 2009; Ridgwell and Zeebe 2005, No author, CBD
17 | P a g e
2009:36) Here ocean biogeochemical processes removes some quantities of
naturally occurring CO2, either through cycling of organic matter locking CO2
into the deep ocean via the biological pump or as organic matter at the surface
of the ocean, converting CO2 through photosynthesis into less harmless
organic matter. This process reduces the inventory count of atmospheric
carbon, regulating climate (Watson, Metzl and Schuster, 2011).
What categories are used to describe ocean and climate and how does the
narrative function?
There is a subtle interaction between ocean and atmosphere that drives
earth’s climate system where earth’s processes are balanced and regulated
through the cycling of atmospheric CO2. When absorbed by the ocean, it is
transformed into different forms of carbonate via interacting atmospheric and
ocean transport processes, that are integral in maintaining earth as a living
dynamic organism, with interacting physical, chemical and biological heating
and cooling mechanisms, giving earth the ability to sustain life (Kirchner on
Gaia, 1989).
This narrative can be classified as the beginning of the story. It provides an
interpretation of an ideal climate system scenario described using the scientific
vernacular of cause and effect. Demonstration of dynamic links between land,
ocean and atmosphere occurs, drawing from multiple and interdisciplinary
scientific domains. Each brings their corresponding propositional storylines
from domains in atmospheric sciences, chemistry, physics, biology, geology,
and mathematics to cite some examples, adding to the building blocks of
knowledge about climate and ocean and the way in which climate and ocean
interact and how the results are interpreted (Hajer 2000:55-72).
18 | P a g e
How some societal groups understand climate
James Lovelock provides a holistic account using an allegory to describe the
interlinking attributes of nature; the “Gaia hypothesis” (Kirchner on Gaia,
1989). Embracing religious principles, he refers to nature as ’ineffable’ and
intrinsically alone (Hulme 2012:150-151). Language is too limited and can only
describe elemental parts of nature, either empirically, by providing scientific
positive statements determined through observations or theoretical apriori
concepts of logic, algorithm and calculus.
Lovelock’s intended audience were scientists, but gained de facto momentum
among many spiritual groups who hold particular beliefs rooted in ethical
systems, provoking questions about environmental health in terms of fairness,
equity and responsibility (Hulme 2012:150:164; Hajer 2000:8:11).
Narrative B: climate perturbed
This narrative begins to focus the middle of the climate story. Earth’s
climatic processes become perturbed due to the effects of human activity
from the industrial period to present times.
Earth’s climate system begins to buffer.
It is the oceans’ ability to cycle carbon organically that affects the stock of
atmospheric CO2. The ocean acts as a heat store, absorbing CO2 into the
upper layers and combining it with deeper ocean waters, transforming CO2
into organic and inorganic carbonate which is flushed through the oceans
transport system. This causes delays in perturbing the biogeochemical
processes in the oceans and atmospheric heating by approximately one degree
(Turley, Findlay, Mangi, Ridgwell, et al, 2009; No author CBD 2009:36)
19 | P a g e
An increased rate of atmospheric CO2 by approximately 30% of its pre-
industrial state is absorbed by the ocean with positive feedback processes,
causing the oceans mechanism for safely removing and locking away carbon to
bolster, changing the depth of a boundary line known as the lysocline, below
which is extremely corrosive with a lower pH. Here no calcite can be deposited
and organic matter dissolves affecting the availability of calcite minerals
required in shell-building tiny creature (Gattuso, Bijma, Gehelen, Riebesell, et
al 2011, Ridgwell and Zeebe 2005)
Increasing amounts of CO2, absorbed by the ocean creates an organic
compound called carbonic acid, reducing ocean alkalinity (Tyrell, 2003). The
surface waters become less saturated with calcium carbonate, affecting the
health or formation of marine biota and the rate at which carbon can be safely
processed, thereby reducing carbonate burial in the deep ocean (Turley,
Findlay, Mangi, Ridgwell, et al, 2009; CBD 2009:36; Schuster and Watson
2007).
This scenario incorporates a present day understanding of climate science with
fragmentary storylines from multiple scientific disciplines that provide a unified
narrative of; atmosphere and ocean CO2 cycling and delays in atmospheric and
sea-surface temperature increases, all intimately connected. Therefore,
within this context changing climate and ocean acidification storylines are
subsumed.
These storylines describe the climate system as a whole entity. However,
more recently focussed research on ocean acidification and ocean processes
generates new storylines framed independently from typical climate change
20 | P a g e
storylines, usually defined in terms of earth’s net energy balance (IPCC 2007a;
IPCC 2011a; IPCC 2011b).
Narrative C: runaway climate, out of control. Mass extinction events.
There is no perfect analogue of past climates that provides a blueprint for how
future climate might behave. However, scientists have been researching
analogues that are comparable with past geological epochs containing records
of carbon isotopes and dissolved carbonate from the ocean floor. By
modelling records of past climates where there have been high levels of
atmospheric CO2, enables scientists to try and understand future impacts of a
buffered ocean sink and associated ecological tipping points. It is thought that
the cycling of carbon may become affected by changes in the current
atmospheric CO2 count (Gattuso, Bijma, Gehelen, Riebesell, et al 2011,
Ridgwell and Zeebe 2005).
The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) 55 Myr ago is one analogue
used by scientists to warn of impending dangers of an apocalyptic future
runaway climate. It was an era associated with major perturbations in the
carbon cycle, accelerated global temperature rise of approximately six degrees
centigrade and cascading ecosystem changes. During this epoch, earth
experienced oscillations of abrupt and changing climates (Tyrell 2007), mass
extinction and the reconfiguration of many microscopic sea organisms through
to higher trophic levels of the biological phylum including mammals (Turley,
Findlay, Mangi, Ridgwell et al:2009,Turley 2011, Ridgwell and Zeebe, 2005;
Lynas six degrees 2008:203-4, Ridgwell and Schmidt 2010).
21 | P a g e
With claims that the current global CO2 count is ten times higher than during
the PETM analogue and represents an “unprecedented geological event,”
(Ridgwell and Schmidt 2010) effects are on an “unprecedented scale,”
(Harrould-Kolieb and Dorothée Herr, UNFCCC, nd). This epoch is seen as so
environmentally significant that it has been termed the anthroprocene by
geologists describing the impacts of human behaviour since industrialisation
(Zalasiewicz and Williams 2011). Models of PETM identify three concurring
characteristics on earth that have led to five previous extinction events;
climate change, ocean acidification and anoxia (de-oxygenated oceans).
Empirical observations demonstrate that all three are occurring now (IPCC
2011a).
Cultural practices
The perturbed and runaway climate narratives prophesise apocalyptic
messages, call for “evangelical urgency” and radical societal behaviour
changes. By drawing on the same empirical evidence understood to be factual,
different storylines that are contextually dependent, provide a portion of the
whole story and can be used as moral levers to action within different social
groups (Szerszysnski 2010:9-24, Uury 2010b:195).
Within scientific literature, the problem is hetrogenised. Bringing together
storyline fragments from a multitude of scientific perspectives reflect specific
background knowledge in atmospheric or marine sciences and differing
interpretations of how the problem is diagnosed. This brings about storylines
that are either understood in terms of a changing climate linked to the CO2
cycle or a lower ocean pH linked to the carbonate cycle, some of which have
benefitted research in the UK and EU securing government financial backing of
£12m to 2015 with the objective of improving understanding of climate, ocean
22 | P a g e
and biogeochemical processes, uncertainties and impacts on marine life and
‘commercially important species’ and sharing critical scientific information
(Laffoley and Baxter 2011; Laffoley and Baxter 2012; Turley, Bakker, Clarke,
n.d; Turley and Boot 2011; EPOCA RUG, n.d; Prince of Monaco, 2010). Multiple
domains from multiple institutions energise new storylines reflecting newly
understood information, opening the topic out for debate across professional
disciplines where there may be discursive interplay between groups
instrumental in knowledge building (Fishcer on Foucault 2010:37-40; Hajer
2000:47:52:66).
There are several voluntary reference user group networks that bring together
knowledge experts, scientists and practitioners from government, private
institutions and NGO’s through common interest. By sharing scientific
knowledge about ocean acidification from different regions, facilitates
speedier ways of building knowledge, problem-solving and facilitates the
control and flow of storylines about the risks of ocean acidification into policy
and public domains, with attempts to mitigate concerns for corrupted
storylines by denier communities (Biermann, Pattberg and Zelli 2010:147; no
author n.d Turley 2011; Laffoley and Baxter 2011; Laffoley and Baxter 2012;
Ocean Acidification Reference User Group, 2010; Newell and
Paterson:2010:39; Lynas 2011).
Literature in the public sphere is authored by some concerned members of the
same scientific community researching ocean acidification (Laffoley, Baxter
2010; Turley and Boot 2011), reflecting the climate perturbed or runaway
climate narrative framed differently from that in scientific literature and
operates different modes of understanding. In public literature, ocean
acidification is homogenised by simplifying the issue, for wider audiences in
23 | P a g e
public and policy who are not familiar with climate function (Hajer 2000:54-
55). Focussing storylines, on problems of industrialisation emphases human
impacts and consequences to ocean health, has rhetorical emotional appeal,
embedded in a changing ocean chemistry narrative signifies dangers about
current and future altered states.
This narrative becomes less about climate change and earth’s energy balance,
which has failed to generate societal behaviour change or an adequate global
policy response and rather invokes new storylines about reduced ocean pH
linked to human health, food security and economic issues. By rationalising
and carefully selecting information about the problem (Hajer 2000:53-54),
storylines are adapted to appeal to their specific audiences. Finding the
appropriate storyline becomes an important part of active agency. It is
thought that ocean health and its corresponding synonym, acidification
resonates with the public more than its simile, de-alkalising (EPOCA RUG, n.d;
Laffoley and Baxter 2012; Roberson and Dropkin 2012).
References to atmosphere and temperature changes used in climate change
discourses are removed altogether from such accounts for several reasons.
Firstly, climate change storylines are said to be suffering public fatigue.
Competing climate change storylines from denier communities, at odds with
dominant scientific discourses cause public confusion as the cause of climate
change. Pessimistic storylines linked to the climate issue negatively frame the
problem paralysing rather than mobilising action (McNagten 2011; Spence and
Pidgeon, 2010). Furthermore, the true impacts of a changing climate are yet to
be felt by people, largely due to inertia in the climate system which has further
stalled global warming (Yusoff 2011).
24 | P a g e
Rhetorical strategies aimed to reduce high carbon practices in public and policy
literature, use emblems such as pteropods’, instead of polar bears so often
used in climate change storyline appeals (Sam Lardner’s song, 2010). This
demonstrates political will to separate the ocean acidification from climate
change storylines. The runaway climate narrative and three climate stressors
are of greatest concern and could take us into unknown climate thresholds and
knowledge about ecological tipping points is still in its infancy. Scientific and
public papers titled ‘Hot sour and breathless’ personify the three climate
stressors of warming, acidifying and de-oxygenating oceans experienced by
marine life. (Ridgwell 2010, Lynas 2008:36, Gattuso, Bijma, Gehelen, Riebesell,
et al 2011, Gruber: 2011, Turley, Keizer, Williamson: 2011, IPCC 2011b).
Such metaphors provide moral imperatives for social action. Use of rhetorical
devices and representational strategies are unsurprising given the severity of
runaway climate storyline and expresses normative desires of scientists (often
concealed by a technical voice within scientific literature) for behaviour change
and an ecosystems approach to action.
RUG social practices
Storylines that find their way into public and policy domains fall outside of the
traditional fixed structures of large wieldy government institutions where roles
are limited by specific social practices in construction and sharing of
knowledge.
Reference user groups have beneficial functions outside traditional
institutional structures. Through increased participation they bring together
stakeholders from multiple domains including those external to government,
whose voice may go unrecognised within more traditional structures.
25 | P a g e
Stakeholders come with broader political goals and links with other
communities, involved in marine, coastal and ocean acidification research that
could bring new storylines (Biermann, Pattberg and Zelli 2010:146,148)
benefitting ocean acidification mitigation, where existing climate change
storylines have failed to address the CO2 issue. Networks, though temporal
have the flexibility for scientists to influence social change, unlike traditional
structures strongly influenced by political dogma and fixed structures. Such an
approach in knowledge production could alter the dynamics of existing social
orders (Hajer 2000:58-63)
This forum facilitates decisions about how to diagnose and address the effects
of ocean acidification. By managing the construction and dissemination of
information related to concerns about ocean acidification, the three stressors
and impacts to ecosystem function and society, members aim to retain close
links with scientific ocean acidification researchers designed to keep the
science pure from contaminated storylines, maintaining consistency of
messaging (Biermann, Pattberg and Zelli 2010:146-161; Laffoley and Baxter
2011; Turley and Gattuso, 2012).
Denier communities
Denier communities are gathering momentum. Scientific author Matt Ridley, a
denier of current scientific ocean acidification storylines remodels plotlines
with premises which conflict with causal scientific positivist statements.
Firstly, claiming bicarbonate ions are good for marine organisms and a reduced
ocean pH facilitates shell formation. Then he compares ocean acidification to
acid rain which is scientifically understood to be an environmentally localised
problem as consequence of sulphur and nitrogen emissions, rather than a
26 | P a g e
global issue where ocean acidification is said to be caused by CO2 (Lynas,
2011:205).
Lessons can be learned from how mixing storylines, used to challenge scientific
evidence for climate change. Contaminated storylines has led to confusion
about the problem diagnosis within the public domain (Hulme 2012:110-139;
Hulme 2012:142-193).
Denier communities leverage negative climate change storylines (despite
conflicting storylines by the international climate science community with
diametrically opposed evidence), as moral levers to their own cause in the
public domain, citing internationally established scientific claims as untrue. In
the US, an astroturf (fake green NGO) was set up to safeguard economic links
to fossil fuels. Funded by The National Coal Association, The Western Fuels
Association and Edison Electric Institute under a benign name; Information
Council for the Environment, it claimed that “climate change is perfectly
natural and that burning oil and coal is a good thing.” Leading up to the Kyoto
protocol, they used the SUV as their chosen emblem to gain middle-class
approval in undermining the protocol (Newell and Paterson, 2010:39).
While the above counter-storylines are extreme, they are very real and
highlight difficulties that climate scientists face, in gaining public and political
acceptance of climate diagnosis. It is yet to be seen whether scientists
researching ocean acidification will fall prey to accusations about knowledge
construction, which by its very nature could be argued is a subjective process.
Such competing conceptions are said to lead to cognitive dissonance, a
discomforting feeling when two conflicting ideas are presented and may cause
some to question the integrity of scientific research (Bradshore and Borchers
27 | P a g e
2000). People tend to rationally select information to suit their own conception
of risk or social justice, which may foster discord among groups (Hulme
2012:144-169:181-209). In practice, this leads to fractious coalitions with
competing cultural values, who convey the problem within their own
conception of what is ethical, leading to disparate policy-making pathways
which fail to address the overall climate problem.
Different worldviews
Science builds evidence by testing hypotheses repeatedly against empirical
evidence, bringing positive claims, storylines regarded as facts. Evidence
thought to be a result of one cause may arise instead from unrecognised
factors identified a later stage. This leaves scientific information and the
discipline vulnerable to criticism (Dessler and Parsons 2010:36-41, Jasanoff
2007:258-259). International climate scientists use collaborative peer review
and Bayesian belief modelling practices based on the probability to determine
the likelihood that a problem will occur under certain conditions. This
approach, though not fully resilient to outsider scepticism, helps towards
overcoming accusations of bias and aims to keep storylines fluid (Hulme
2012:74-88; Dessler and Parsons 2010:36-41; IPCC 2007a; Pachauri and
Reisinger 2007).
Rules for policymakers are far less rigorous than in science. Policymakers are
concerned with normative claims; whether or how a problem should be
tackled using debate and emotional appeal, rather than use of positive more
factual claims. Such normative claims are inherently biased, based on a
policymaker’s conception of what should be the right approach, rather than
actual truth claims (Dessler and Parsons 2010:46-50).
28 | P a g e
Dessler and Parsons believe that positivist and normative statements become
mixed in policymaking, therefore confusing storylines and further
misrepresenting information affecting the way in which problems are
diagnosed and communicated. By combining empirical scientific evidence with
policy rhetoric of a particular world view can change the way in which a
problem or action pathway is justified, despite underlying compelling evidence
(2010:55-59, Hulme 2012:110-139). Many communities diagnose climate
change differently as a result of the way in which they conceive social risk or
morality rooted within different schools of thought, which has concerns,
orientated in ecology, religion, economic welfare, or human rights for example
which can affect the way in which the risks about climate change are
understood in comparison to other issues (Hulme 2012:142-193). By
combining empirical scientific evidence with policy rhetoric of a particular
world view can change the way in which a problem or action pathway is
justified, despite underlying compelling evidence (Dessler and Parsons
2010:55-59, Hulme 2012:110-139).
Policymakers must appear credible in order to gain buy-in from their
electorate, using scientific claims to underpin collective pathways. Narrative
themes of science and technology are present in all aspects of society. Those
who are governed do not understand the science that is being discussed.
Rather, they are conditioned to accept it as a robust form of public knowledge
through public institutions that shape information (Jasanoff 2007:249 on
Ziman 1966; Jasanoff 2007:249-251).
Given the complexity of climate science, a combined positivist and normative
approach is considered important in assessing judgements about risks faced by
society from dangerous climate change (Dessler and Parsons 2010:55-56;
29 | P a g e
Hulme 2012:98-108; Jasanoff 2007:266). The UNFCCC and Kyoto protocol
architecture is designed by climate change policymakers to manage
greenhouse gas emissions target-setting, with aims to keep global warming
within a temperature increase of two degrees. Claims that temperature
increases at this level would cause significant risks to society are based on facts
from technical knowledge experts (Hulme 2012:102; Biermann, Pattberg and
Zelli 2010:15-33).
The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) is an international
community of scientists working under the UNFCCC, whose main objective is to
understand the impacts of climate change on socio-economic well-being and
review options for mitigation and adaptation strategies. Economic narratives
of socioeconomic references and language of classical welfare economics
underlie pathways of CO2 mitigation and adaption, embedded within IPCC
documentation. Storylines describe relationships between emissions and
demographic, economic, social and technological development pathways
(Edenhofer, Pichs-Madruga, Sokona et al 2010; IPCC Synthesis Report 2007a;
IPCC 2010), forming the basis for climate change architecture and policy
discourses, with storylines peppered with notions of industrialisation and
global economic growth (Noble 2009). Economic storylines are framed under
sustainable development linking developing nations and job stimulus initiatives
in western nations (IPCC 2010; Drexhage and Murphy 2010).
There have been accusations that such discourse narratives are elitist,
representative of governments with vested business interests from the north
and west, instrumental in shaping international policy architecture to suit their
own objectives (Uury 2010b). This leads to questions as to whether the views
of scientists are truly represented (Hajer 2000:13; Daniels and Enfield 2009).
30 | P a g e
Climate change risk is expressed as impacts to a countries economic growth
affecting its products and services outputs, also known as gross domestic
product (GDP) (Edenhofer, Pichs-Madruga, Sokona 2012). Governments aim to
increase GDP year on year (Coley, 2011:14-22, 59-69), “threatening to reduce
the ethical and political to the mere economic.” (Clarke 2011).
“Safe” increase in temperature therefore, is benchmarked against assurance
that the economy is protected, rather than any other indicator such as
ecosystem health for example (Lenton 2011; Lenton 2012; IPCC 2007b; IPCC
2010; Climate Change, 2007; Szerszysnski 2010:11; Bush, G.W, 2001; Hu Jintao
speech on climate change, 2009). Such rhetorical language is hegemonic in
government debate in diagnosing the climate change problem and limits
enormous potential for an inexhaustible mesh of curative pathways
(Uury2010b; Hulme 2012).
Storyline claims that risk assessments are quantitative and free from value
judgements can be used as principled tools in diffusing uncertainty and gaining
public buy-in to regulatory decision making (Jasanoff 2007:264-266). Using no
formal rules, rather techno-scientific institutional practices the notion of
objectivity provides impetus for the state to rationalise key themes into
regulation and rationalise out other considerations (Jasanoff 2007:255:264-
266). Ecosystem health is one example that is often dismissed as irrelevant or
irrational in place economic storyline frames.
Scientific risk assessments have normative characteristics. The way in which
information is represented is objective but in fact poses problematic as they
initially depend on personal perception framing and information selection,
31 | P a g e
within an assessment framework that claims to be unbiased but are also often
intertwined in government research agendas (Hulme 2012:98-108:181-197,
Jasanoff 2007:265-266).
Continuing the dangerous temperature increase theme of two degrees, IPCC
literature provides examples of how societal risk may be understood.
Referring to the ecological tipping-points storyline of climate beyond two
degrees, a runaway climate would unleash unknown and irreversible dangers
(IPCC 2007a). Since economic frames are used to measure environmental
health leading to its detriment, ecologists have no option but to create
competing storylines framed in catastrophic terms, about disaster avoidance
(Hulme 2012:120-121:132).
It could be argued that the two degree dangerous climate change storyline
links to the worldview of western policymakers whose conception of
dangerous climate change, misses out other audiences and their worldview
concerns (Hulme 2012:227-228). Lenton’s tipping points map provides
warnings of where abrupt climate change may occur and its impact on social
behaviour. His map disguises historical geographies of anthropogenic climate
change, oversimplifies the issue by generalising the problem and fails to
highlight geographical inequalities and ecological climate change impacts on
biodiversity and certain communities in the southern hemisphere (Daniels and
Enfield on Liverman 2009, Russil and Nyssa 2009). While the map is powerful
imagery, the biogeophysical aspects of the climate system are extremely
complex and minor perturbations in climate can fuel unpredictable internal
feedback mechanisms which are difficult to predict and quantify (Archer
1960:129-131), which is not conveyed.
32 | P a g e
There is frequent fluctuation from physical to biological referents which is
confusing, causing conflicting frames and different understandings as to
whether the map is intended as a scientific principle or is a more abstract
allegorical representation that is merely symbolic of the climate problem
(Russil and Nyssa 2009). Furthermore, the map lacks cultural perspectives and
vernacular knowledge from alternative societies that could provide insights in
discerning unique knowledge and rich information about vulnerable
ecosystems. Instead, limiting information, leads to increasingly diminishing
solution pathways and accusations of linear policymaking (Hulme 2012:145;
Uury 2010b). Western policy debates tend in general to recycle GDP
storylines even in dealing with highly complex and threatening issues such as
climate change. Taken as a matter of course, GDP storylines become a mark of
morality, reinforcing the argument that economic storylines dominate research
agendas (Callon and Latour, 1981:277-303; Urry, 2010a: 2010b, 2011c).
Energised themes can be traced to the dominant worldview of industrialisation
and associated economic and technocratic discourses, large government
institutions and their corresponding organisations and individuals, view
ecology and climate as benign and separate to society (Hulme 2012:186-191).
During Kyoto protocol negotiations incongruent economic framings found
permanence under the moral guise of “equity and fairness” and “economic
growth” between nation-states and in policy literature documents within the
UN (Drexhage and Murphy 2010; Hulme 2012:109-114; Hajer 2000:100-103;
Biermann, Pattberg and Zelli 2010:20-33; Hu Jintao speech on climate change,
2009). Differing interpretations led to fractious negotiations, an under-
developed Kyoto architecture, ill-fitting in addressing a runaway climate
scenario (Clarke 2010; Yusoff 2011).
33 | P a g e
While absolving responsibility for developing nations under the line
differentiated responsibilities, the US technocratic proposal deemed partially
conflictive with the Kyoto protocol aims to manage climate change under the
energy security storyline. The EU favours a market-based approach using
carbon-trading, again under an economic frame. (Biermann, Pattberg et al
2012:20-21:61-64; Brown 2007; Helm, 2008; Hu Jintao speech on climate
change, 2009; Jasanoff 2007:225-260; Stern Review 2007; Pfeiffer 2003:33-
41).
All storylines are linked to a business-as-usual economic frame, leading to
linear and reactive policy pathways that address issues as they occur. Some
policymakers are calling for technocratic strategies; research in geo-
engineering (Kruger 2011; House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee 2010:82) that would further lock society into systemic carbon
practices (Uury 2011c on Schumacher 1973), maintaining responsibility in the
hands of technocrats, absolving society from behaviour change, (Clarke 2010;
Yusoff 2011; Biermann, Pattberg and Zelli 2010:20-25)
Some academics believe that such an approach would denote the end of
nature.
“…both the biotech and biodiversity debate evokes images of the end of
nature.” (Giddens 1998)
There is much contention regarding the definition of geo-engineering,
conception of risk and competing moral framings. Chapter 6, Results and
Discussion evaluates whether ocean acidification will disrupt this current
pathway or whether it will be placed on the same trajectory as climate change.
34 | P a g e
Chapter 4 Methods
Overview of study This section, reviews linguistic methods and devices, designed to address
overall research study aims, establish how ocean acidification discourses are
interweaved with climate change discourses. This is an area of importance. To
reiterate, climate change is a multi–national, multi-interpretive domain which
is understood by some academics (Biermann, Pattberg and Zelli, 2010:25-31)
as fragmented and complex, failing to provide adequate responses to the way
in which the problem has been framed by leading scientists and policymakers.
This study commits to understand whether ocean acidification could traverse
along the same trajectory as climate change; analysing the production of
narrative discourses and the way in which ocean acidification is constructed
and represented. Corresponding storylines within discourses may discern the
likely course of action leading to its cure. This study uses face-to-face or
telephone interviews with experts in ocean acidification; marine scientist
actors, involved in production of policy in the UK and on the international
stage and some work closely with groups that are linked with climate change
including UNFCCC and Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) organisations.
It is hoped that by comparing ocean acidification narrative discourses with
those for climate change, will illuminate entanglements where narratives
collide or separate. This process should extract the main themes from
discourses and demonstrate how the problem is diagnosed and its pathway to
cure. It is hoped that this will identify likely preventative mitigation or adaptive
pathways to ocean acidification.
35 | P a g e
Methods and linguistic devices
Overall research aims guide the analysis in this report and clarifies the best
approach in contributing to ocean acidification research. Several methods are
used to establish major themes within ocean acidification inductive and
analytical methods.
Discourse analysis is a post-positivist research method, using Hajer’s
framework to assess narratives within discourses and the way belief systems
are constructed. It draws from Foucault, a social constructivist, interested in
relative-value and illumination of “micro-mechanisms” of government; power
relations and personal practices that deviate from everyday bureaucratic
structures. It is commonly used in environmental policy to highlight different
ways of speaking about environmental concerns and solutions, affected by
social practices. Such practices influence the creation of institutions,
governance, policymaking and environmental problem solving (Böcher et al
2008; Feindt and Oels, 2005:162; Keil and Debbané, 2005).
Foucault's ideas highlight questions about discourse formation, where actors
engage and interact, instead of focussing on what they are doing or their goals
(Dean, 1999). It is the “play of discontinuities” within and between discourses
which “render the apparent polymorphous interweaving of correlations”,
emphasising inter-discursive struggles and social change (Hajer on Foucault
2000:47-:52:66). It is hoped that combining this approach with Hajer’s
narrative methods will enhance understanding of different perspectives and
interplay of discourses between different groups.
36 | P a g e
Desk research, recommended by Hajer, is an analytic approach in sourcing
public literature about ocean acidification and its major themes. He
recommends a helicopter explorative view of the subject, prior to beginning
research to provide an overview, useful in identifying key themes as well as
authors who could be possible interview contacts. This is not a linear
approach, but instead is used in conjunction with other methods.
Grounded theory is inductive using a bottom-up approach to gathering
empirical data generated from discourses. It is interactive, expediting the
research process, identifying problems within the topic during empirical data
gathering. Grounded theory is used iteratively, throughout the research study.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews where the interviewer asks general
questions, only to guide the interview are used to gather discourse data,
deemed a soft approach with central aims to allow themes to emerge from the
data. Qualitative interviews highlights current and emerging narrative themes,
their accompanying storyline sequences and associated metaphors revealing
propositional content and their storylines from discourses derived from
interviews which may determine areas of social change (Bogdan & Biklen,
1992). Their placement in the discursive struggle for dominance identifies
where storylines intersect or collide and their context, which may or may not
be bound by traditional structures with which they are being uttered. These
combined factors hopefully reveal what action is likely even though discursive
struggles between actors may reveal different normative viewpoints of the
situation. Such formation is instrumental in production of knowledge (Hajer
2000:42-58, Fischer 2010:86-91). If handled effectively, then this approach
37 | P a g e
may illuminate personal thoughts, concerns and strategies for sustaining
storylines.
“It can be shown that people who can be proven not to understand one
another fully, nevertheless together produce meaningful political
interventions.” (Hajer, 2005:302)
Once data is collected from interviews, a thematic analysis is used to
categorise rich information from the semi-structured interviews, into main
narrative themes. This approach enables organisation and analysis of data
(Braun and Clarke, 2006:79, Dey 1993).
Overall research aims
Like climate change, multiple actors are from different domains; atmosphere
sciences, mathematics, chemistry, ecology and marine biology. While IPCC
narrative research is pivotal, no single emissions scenario model can address
needs and impacts of all user communities. It is hoped that each actor from
each domain is instrumental in bringing their own perspective of the problem
and adding to the body of knowledge. So, this fascinating topic area may bring
with it new understandings. If it is talked about differently, then may
illuminate areas of social change which may benefit ocean acidification. This
study also assesses whether climate change could benefit from any framings or
revised social practices that are present in ocean acidification.
- Is ocean acidification will be discussed in the same way as climate
change? If it is talked about in the same way, then it is likely that the
course of action to resolve the problem will be similar?
38 | P a g e
- How do cultural values affect the way in which actors make sense of
ocean acidification?
- To what extent do ocean acidification and climate change solution
pathways collide?
- How could this affect the likely policy outcome?
- What is talked about and what is left off out of discourses?
- How provocative is the ocean acidification narrative in bringing new
themes, categories and associated storylines, created from discursively
diagnosing the problem?
What this research is not
A positivist approach is a deductive theory, reliant on driving out hypotheses in
advance, creating general statements from observations and then verifying
them. These are taken as facts or black-box assumptions that assume a
particular pathway (Burney 2008:2-10; Hajer, 1995: 22:45:59; Fischer
2010:101; Wittmer and Birner 2005:5-9).
Such an approach which objectifies information is unlikely to highlight areas of
social change.
Action research: Justification for chosen methods and rationale for research design
To justify the research methods and design, it is necessary to highlight
constituent parts of the data gathering process which affects choice of
methods and how they are used. Data gathering can be defined as a
combination of data produced, that is noticed and data collection which is
waiting analysis. Data production is an inductive approach used in driving out
39 | P a g e
themes and categories from unstructured information and fits well with
Hajer’s approach to narrative, storyline and metaphor identification. Data
collection indicates a rational approach, which makes sense of the information
derived (Dey, 1993:16)
Data is produced and collected using semi-structured interviews from three
pilot participants’, on separate occasions (Daniel and Turner, 2010). Grounded
theory’s bottom-up approach is helpful in identifying the main themes in ocean
acidification early in the study.
One participant notes discomfort with climate change and looks to find ways in
keeping ocean acidification separate;
“Climate change has had a lot of bad press and they make
uncomfortable bedfellows. We do not want the ocean acidification
problem to be tarred with the same brush.” (Marine scientist, Scottish
Natural Heritage)
This quote provides an example of the normative concerns of one actor in this
study, and helps to formalise the overarching research study question.
His social position; organisation affiliation, time and location of the interview
are important and used in consideration in choosing the research tools used.
“To understand the meaning of a sentence of whole discourse in an
argumentative context, one should not examine merely the words… at
the moment of utterance. One should also consider positions which are
40 | P a g e
being critised, or against which a justification is being mounted. Without
knowing these counter positions, the argument meaning will be lost.”
(Hajer 2000:53 on Harre and Billig)
Sub-questions from this research study are formalised through a combination
of desk research sourced from public literature (Hajer 2006) about the topic
and further interviews. This provides a holistic and interactive approach in
production of rich data that reflects personal knowledge of actors, derived
through experience.
Limitations of study and further areas for research
Narratives are contextualised into different interpretive storylines with basic
features that focus on political, technological and social categories. These are
important in understanding possible policy pathways in managing ocean
acidification. However, further analysis could be conducted to determine the
effects of storylines within this study using quantitative and/ or qualitative
techniques.
Study limitations are largely due to the narrow study scope, population size of
participants with 10 members and the qualitative framework used is time-
consuming in developing narrative themes. However, as ocean acidification is
a relatively new topic, there are very few members who are working in ocean
acidification and climate change policy. Therefore, to gain 10 invaluable
experts to contribute towards this study is considered an exciting achievement.
Furthermore, it is not be feasible to select more participants, due to the
richness of qualitative data and the length of time it takes to produce rich data
from interviews with each participant, collect and analyse the data. Data
41 | P a g e
produced and collected from interviews is compared and analysed. Initially
themes are re-occurring, but eventually, no more are found in the data.
Saturation occurs and no more data is analysed (Dey 1993). As a result, there
are no further requirements to interview anyone else in marine science.
The approach to analysing data is a rational model, where themes are coded
into categories of information. While it provides benefit in comparing and
analysing data, it may be seen as an anti-inductive. By analytically selecting
the research data and reducing it into chunks of information to be interpreted,
adds several layers of subjectivity to the analysis (Fischer 2010:222, Kendall on
Wodak 2007).
This study does not address societal values reflected in localised narrative
discourses and neither does it reflect policy narrative discourses at EU or global
levels. Both would be fascinating areas of study, informing knowledge about
cultural differences and values in ocean acidification and perceived areas of
concern to specific societal groups, which could lead to revised action
pathways.
Empirical research strategy, research design and pr ocedures
Rationale for research design
The research strategy accommodates inductive methods within its design,
ameliorating the production of subjective discourses, enhancing individual
cultural values and interpretations of participant actors with expert knowledge
from different backgrounds (Daniel and Turner, nd).
42 | P a g e
Deductive methods are useful in analysing interview data collected about the
constructs of ideas, thoughts, perceptions about the way in which participants
believe the state-of-affairs. By creating bounds around the data using coding
procedures, helps to formalise it in preparation to reconstruct participant
opinions into storyline sequences. Once reconstructed from interview data,
they are formalised within data dictionaries to (refer to Appendix 3) document
and interpret normative concerns and social position in preparation for the
data analysis write up.
Developmental research phases
Data produced and collected from research is broken out into five
developmental phases incorporating methods described earlier. There is a
constant relationship between the research phases and methods which should
be acknowledged. All are intertwining. Any detailed segmentation detracts
from the purpose of the methods and study.
Each phase offers flexibility, in its iterative style allowing for ease of data
handling and analysis, important if this study is to effectively add to the body
of knowledge in ocean acidification.
The research phases outlined in the table below accommodate primary
interview and secondary literature sources. Developmental research phases (Constructed by researcher)
Description of research phases (adapted from Hajer)
1. The Identity phase Desk research; Provides a helicopter approach, an overview of research frameworks, methods and procedures that can be used in ocean acidification social research. Identifies possible study participants within the ocean acidification space that can be interviewed.
43 | P a g e
Helps to identify a chronology of events within discourses about ocean acidification.
2. The construction phase
Construction of information about potential participants, construction of emails to possible interview participants in ocean acidification policymaking (including those that could be used for the initial pilot phase). Chronology of discourses and events identified from phases 1 and 3, from interviews and secondary sources. Discourses are constructed into high level maps, building on emergent themes, formalising different storyline perspectives and topics for discursive struggle, noting dominant and peripheral storylines in ocean acidification. Construction of research questions from emerging themes and high level questions that can be used to guide interviews with participants. Construct methods and procedures for rationalising and analysing data, including data codes. Construction of field notes and memos used in preparation for interpreting interview data. Construction of data dictionary, with terms that appear to form collective agreement and subjective meanings/ personal framings as a result of data collected from interviews.
3. The analysis phase
Documents and interview data are analysed and memoing and data coding procedures are used to analyse data that is produced and collected out from phases 1 and 2. Argumentative exchange is searched for within the primary and secondary data using data procedures that were identified and constructed in phases 1 and 2. This shows how actors, institutions and nations become caught up in interplay. Analysis of data and field notes using coding techniques, synthesising terms where there appears to be discursive agreement and separate subjective meanings/ personal framings from the data dictionary, which was constructed in phase 2.
44 | P a g e
Boundaries are set around collected data, using data coding procedures.
4. The verification phase Initial testing of frameworks, methods and data analysis tools, from a sample dataset, to demonstrate consistency of methods and procedures. Verify narrative and storyline reconstructions from data that has been coded and categorised. Compares primary and secondary source data with other sources, reviewing similarities and differences in points of view.
5. The reflexive phase Allows for on-going researcher reflexive practices, to identify areas that may influence selection of research material and participant discourses during interviews.
Source: adapted from Hajer, 2006:73-74.
Table 2: Incorporates developmental research phases with Hajer’s desk research approach
This table is adapted from Hajer’s helicopter model, offering a desirable post-
positivist approach, to field data collection and analysis of large amounts of
discourse data, facilitating analysis of pattern formation, whilst providing a
framework for acknowledging new insights for appraisal. Hajer accepts that
the researcher may pollute the research process and so a reflexivity stage for
self-analysis is included to counter this problem (Hajer 2000:67). The helicopter
model and its research themes as well as additional themes for coding and
interpreting data are embedded within a five phase structure devised by the
researcher for the benefit of managing the research process into more
manageable chunks (Hajer 2006).
Hajer’s model; adapted desk research
Phase 1, the identity phase advocates initial desk research as part of Hajer’s
helicopter approach, providing benefit through an overview of the topic.
Available documentation is identified and reviewed incorporating general
45 | P a g e
online research of themes about ocean acidification given the subject matter is
often framed differently from literature about climate change. This approach
is taken, to understand the topic, provide a chronology of events and identify
participants in the ocean acidification discursive space who may benefit this
study. Science papers featuring positivist information about, the causes and
impacts of ocean acidification are analysed to establish similarities and
differences between climate change and ocean acidification discourses.
Further documents and books in the public domain are reviewed to provide a
strong grasp of qualitative research and discourse theory.
Phase 2, the construction phase aims to bring out emergent themes from
potential participants about ocean acidification discourses. By reconstructing
higher and lower level information and mapping organisational information to
participants, methods within this phase are used to formalise different
storyline perspectives, which reflect ideological hegemony as well as
conflicting or outlier perspectives which may highlight discursive struggles. As
this is an iterative approach, information mapping and chronological
reconstruction is ongoing throughout this study using data from primary
interview and secondary sources. Construction of research questions emerge
from themes as well as configuration of interview questions as thematic and
open ended, with intention to journey participants through interviews using
‘what?’, ‘how?’ and ‘why’ questions, which may generate a free-flow of rich
and diverse qualitative empirical data. Production of such unclassified or
uncategorised data that grounded theory emulates, helps to illuminate the
interconnectedness of discourses, social relationships and practices and
enables the research to focus on narrative form, characteristics or patterns
implicit within the data.
46 | P a g e
Phase 3, the analysis phase
Documents and interview data are analysed and memoing and data coding
procedures are used to analyse data that is produced and collected from
phases 1 and 2. Data from semi-structured interviews intentionally lacks
structured, evident in the inductive process by which it is derived. It is
therefore helpful to use deduction to set boundaries around the data using
codes which are generated to classify key themes using datasets for purposes
of analysis (Dey 1993:17). This rational approach provides benefit, in handling
seemingly insurmountable amounts of interview data allowing themes and
patterns to emerge from empirical interview data (Dey 1993:62:69), which is
compared with public literature, some of which is authored by interviewees.
This facilitates comparison of dominant narrative themes, categories,
propositional storylines and meanings which can be applied at different layers
of the data sets (Dey 1993:17:57:59:69-62:69). Data coding is discussed
further in Chapter 5.
Primary and secondary source data is analysed for argumentative exchange,
using data procedures that are identified and constructed within phases 1 and
2. This demonstrates how actors, institutions and nations become caught up in
interplay. Data analysis and synthesising using field notes and memo coding
techniques are used and discursive dis-agreements and subjective meanings
are outlined in the data dictionary, constructed in phase 2. Boundaries are set
around collected data, using data coding procedures.
Early design considerations incorporated site of argumentation. Hajer
suggests review of social practices or “settings” as an invaluable tool during
data collection at sites, where there is likely to be discursive conflict as a good
47 | P a g e
way to evaluate active agency and the Foucauldian conception of power
conflict (Dey, 1993:53.) However, this approach is less useful for this study and
during analysis made the decision to remove it from the design.
During an initial engagement, where three participants were present, all spoke
with one voice, agreeing with one another and any forms of voluntary goal
oriented behaviours were difficult to identify. There is not the scope to
entertain here, given the limitations of this study. Additionally, the themes
were less relevant to ocean acidification and decision was taken to remove
them.
Phase 4, the reliability and verification phases, offers comparative techniques
to ensure reliability of information in production and collection of data are
inherent across all developmental research phases. Since relative value is of
interest; personal understandings and new insights can be gained through the
medium of discourse formation and action, by comparison of participants
discourse and any differences in policy rhetoric or the organisational line and
policy practices (Sharp and Richardson, 2001). Interview data is cross-
referenced with organisational documents to analyse whether participants
express their own opinion or follow the organisational line. This approach
recognises the importance of illuminating the micro mechanisms of discursive
formation as well as the organisational approach (Hajer 2000:47-48:51:59-60).
This should lead to specific action outcomes which can be defined in terms of
macro organisational or micro objectives which correspond to personal
viewpoints which can effect change.
48 | P a g e
Coded datasets derived from primary and secondary sources, establish
similarity and differences between storylines and competing perspectives.
Initial testing of frameworks, methods and data analysis tools form a sample
dataset should demonstrate consistency of methods and procedures.
Phase 5, the reflexive phase. This study interrogates the ocean acidification
policymaking process, utilising Hajer’s approach to discourse analysis. His
appreciation of research practices; scope and process for gathering primary
information is utilised based on dialogue with knowledgeable experts. Critics
may argue that research choices are inherently subject to personal bias.
Development of research scope, synthesising information through document
analysis, interview transcripts and coding is interpretative, to provide a few
examples. Difficulty in separating researcher from participants during the
interview process of discursive formation is problematic, given that context
dependent interplay is integral to knowledge production and is likely to have
some bearing on discourse orientation, the way in which it is framed, produced
and reproduced (Jasanoff 2007). The problem of data selection in scientific
practices is demonstrated in the literature review and social research should
be no exception (Kendall on Wodak 2007:3-5; Jasanoff 2007).
It is also acknowledged that context and location have impacts on free flow of
discursive production. Site selection of participant interviews is important.
Context and placement at specific times and locations may affect whether
participants are more likely to provide their own viewpoint or that of their
organisation coalition or government party line. However, it may not be
practical to influence the type of setting given study participants may have
limited time availability and likely interview locations will be academic offices
and local cafes, so site selection does not form part of the study design.
49 | P a g e
Overcoming researcher bias
This study acknowledges a Foucauldian stance and aims to overcome
researcher bias.
Because the grounded theory method is inductive, it limits preconceived ideas
about generating theories prior to data collection and Hajer’s helicopter
approach to desk research which recommends an initial broad chronological
overview of key documents is believed to limit any normative agenda (Hajer
2006). The presence of the research position, values, interests and social
norms are scrutinised during knowledge formation through on-going reflexive
practices and are reflected in the study design (Ryan, nd; Kendall on Wodak,
2007:3-5).
As grounded theory enables a bottom-up empirical approach to data
collection, interviews with an initial small sample of knowledge experts
highlights key themes within the ocean acidification discursive space. Policy
and scientific documents provides the backdrop to key themes in ocean
acidification and comparison with themes from initial interviews provides
reliability that the research scope and data selection is contextually relevant
across domains.
During interviews with knowledgeable experts, the interviewer seeks to remain
observationally impartial and disinterested wherever possible, overcoming
normative concerns and value judgements that could otherwise hinder
knowledge production.
50 | P a g e
Interview research strategy is defined under phase 2 to enable the free flow of
discourse formation. Email follow ups provide further clarification where
required.
Participant selection and introduction of participa nts
The participants almost choose themselves. All are privy to social practices
within the scientific and policy domains in the UK and internationally for ocean
acidification and climate change and have profound insights into problem
areas. Whilst most participants are in the public domain, some prefer to have
their personal information anonymised, though research and organisation
information is permitted. For uniformity, all participant personal information
is anonymised; that is their first and last names (refer to table 5 below for
anonymised participant information).
Even though experts are from different organisations, with differing
perspectives, they are a closely knit group of mostly marine scientific
researchers and policymakers with a working knowledge of ocean acidification
and climate change issues and it is thought that the designated sample is a
good representation of experts working at policy level. They pride themselves
in working well and collaboratively at an international level.
“We are a great community, very collaborative and better than other
environmental groups looking at different topic areas. We have
achieved much and managed to get Ocean Acidification onto the policy
agenda within 10 years, which is generally very challenging.”
Quote ANONYMISED – IUCN Director, 2012.
51 | P a g e
All interview participants are familiar with the perturbed and runaway climate
narratives given their involvement in ocean acidification and climate change
research. Interview participants have normative concerns and desires for
social change, indicative through authored papers and links to public resolver
network groups about such issues. Ocean acidification storylines of ecosystem
regime changes and extinction events for example, hold them together albeit
through conception of future tragedy, yet interview research demonstrates
that their beliefs as to what should be the most appropriate solution pathways
differ.
This supports Hajer’s preferred linguistic narrative methods. Fischer describes
Hajer; policy coalitions are held together by narrative storylines and not by
their beliefs.
“Rather it is to argue, that it is not the knowledge in belief systems per
se that holds members of such coalitions together, but the ‘storylines’
that symbolically condense the facts and values basic to a belief system.”
(Fischer 2006:102 on Hajer)
Research participants are mostly from the UK, with links to international
policymaking organisations, though there is one participant ocean acidification
expert who is from Germany, works for a conservation organisation with one
other UK participant and is affiliated to some of the same European networks
where UK most participants are involved.
Participant segmentation
52 | P a g e
As a result of initial desk research, background reading about participants and
their organisations by which they are linked and interviews participants are
segmented by organisation into two separate parent domains: Government
and Conservation groups. Government groups represent UK members who
work under the auspices of government. Conservation groups represent
members who work for UK and EU conservation and NGO organisations.
Further child domains provide lower-level conceptual orientation. Child
domains for government are divided into three types: (a) Government quango
or inner office. (b) Academic type i, reflecting researchers who work on behalf
of central government and quango organisations but do not work directly
within the marine environment. (c) Academic type ii, reflect researchers
working on behalf of central government and quangos organisations but work
directly with the marine environment.
It is thought prior to interviews that participants from different parent and
child segments may hold different viewpoints, as a result of organisational
influence where their own normative perspectives may deviate from the
organisational viewpoint.
While parent segments provide a broad organisational worldview, child
segments hone in on risk perspectives of individual organisations and likely just
action pathway as a result of cultural differences. Results from interviews will
highlight any inter-discursive tension between participants and deviation from
the organisational line.
53 | P a g e
It is believed from initial secondary source research that participants from
government organisations are more likely to hold the hegemonic government
stance recommended for climate change as a technocratic course of action in
the form of geo-engineering whether from government office or academia
organisations and that this may also mitigate CO2 and ocean acidification.
Participants from conservation backgrounds maybe more likely to opt for
action leading to societal behaviour change and may steer away from storyline
discourses linked to technocratic or industrial action pathways currently
projected for climate change. These participants may be influenced by
storylines and research objectives that seek to protect the marine environment
and promote ocean health, since discourse storylines link conservation to ways
management of ecosystems (Prince of Monaco, 2010; Gruber 2011).
How participants conceive of risk will be addressed in Chapter 6. But for those
with a scientific background in marine science, it is thought that an ecosystems
approach to risk may involve protecting the marine environment and
biodiversity rather than the economy. Participants who hold this conception
could be from government academic and/ or conservation domains. These
participants are likely to be influenced by Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal
Maximum (PETM) and the runaway climate narrative, which links increasing
atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification events with accelerated global
temperature rise of approximately six degrees centigrade and cascading
ecosystem changes (Turley, Findlay, Mangi, Ridgwell et al 2009; Turley 2011;
Ridgwell and Zeebe 2005; Lynas 2008; Lynas 2011:203-4).
Those abstracted away from marine science that hold positions in government
office, may have a socio-economic outlook and frame risks in terms of the
54 | P a g e
economy and justify action pathways in terms of GDP and industrial storylines.
If this is the case, then it is yet to be determined whether these participants
will have new storylines that reflect dangers in relation to ocean acidification
or whether they will revert to climate change storylines that perhaps have
some level of permanence already (Coley, 2011:14-22, 59-69, Lenton 2011).
It is expected that differences in risk association will reflect justification for
particular action pathways and approach in policymaking. Note that such
differences in risk diagnosis and affiliation with different global policymaking
groups may reflect disparate policymaking pathways that are incongruent.
Participants from government domain as determined by organisational
source information.
Parent domain
Government
Organisation
Predicted risk perspective/ storyline linked to problem diagnosis
Predicted action pathway orientation
Child domain
UK government participants (Government quango or inner office members)
DECC, Defra Socio-economic/ GDP
Technocratic advocates
Child domain
Academia type i (Members belonging to academic research on behalf of central government and quangos organisations but do not work directly within the marine environment)
UEA, Bristol Socio-economic/ GDP
Technocratic advocates
Child domain
Academia type ii (Members belonging to academic research on behalf of central government and quangos organisations but work directly with the marine environment)
PLM Ecosystem health and biodiversity
Technocratic advocates
55 | P a g e
Table 3: Government domain by participant segmentation parent and child domains highlight
predicted risk perspective and predicated action pathway orientation as a result of risk perspective.
Participants from conservation domain as determined by organisational
source information.
Table 4: Conservation domain; participant segmentation parent and child domains highlight
predicted risk perspective and predicated action pathway orientation as a result of risk perspective
Participant networks and organisation affiliations
Interview participants are linked to the organisations outlined in black italics
below. Initial Interviews with chief scientists and research leads from
government and academic organisations on the UKOA research programme
leads to further interviews via recommendation with national and
international coalition groups. Academic science leads have science research
and policy membership links with conservation groups such as Scottish
National Heritage and Natural England as well as NGO, Greenpeace and non-
profit organisation Seaweb.
Most have a presence on international coalition research groups such as
European Project on Ocean Acidification (EPOCA), a five year international
research project which has now finished, as well as provide evidence in
Parent domain Conservation groups
Organisation
Predicted risk perspective/ storyline linked to problem diagnosis
Predicted action pathway orientation
Child domain
UK and EU conservation and NGO organisations
Greenpeace, Seaweb Snh, IUCN x 2
Ecosystem health and biodiversity
Behaviour change advocates
56 | P a g e
collaboration with German research group BIOACID and the IPCC (Turley and
Boot, 2011:259-260). International participants’ as recommended by UKOA
science leads and conservation groups are interviewed. The International
Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN engages in international ocean
acidification funded research projects, including BIOACID as well as assuming
responsibility for shaping international law for the United Nations Framework
for Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC). Defra and UKOA academics have
close links with Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). All coalitions with
the exception of UK government Defra and DECC take part in the Reference
User Group (RUG), where concerns about knowledge dissemination and
information framing for ocean acidification are addressed (EPOCA 7, 2011).
“The relatively recent and emerging understanding of the nature of
ocean acidification and its potential consequences means that it has not
achieved the ‘pull-through’ to policymakers that its nature might
warrant. For example, the risk to marine ecosystems received little
attention in the COP15 negotiations at Copenhagen. Scientists working
on ocean acidification must therefore embrace the challenging task of
communicating their science openly and understandably to policy-and
decision-makers.” (Turley and Boot, 2011:260).
This is an international community where scientific experts circumnavigate,
often frustrating complex organisational structures. Threats about ocean
acidification are exchanged with goal oriented framing and flow of information
to policymakers and the media, which is instrumental in defining the course of
action in shaping international policy (Biermann, Pattberg and Zelli 2010:146-
163; Laffoley and Baxter 2011; Laffoley and Baxter 2012).
57 | P a g e
“The pitfalls are numerous as one tries to communicate complex science
to non-specialists. There could be instances when ‘target’ and
‘threshold’ are incorrectly taken to be the same thing, so resulting in
confusion; for CO2 emissions the ‘target’ should be well below the
‘threshold’.” (Turley and Boot, 2011:260)
Hulme suggests that given the complexity of climate and policy setting,
scientists are ever increasingly required to take part in co-production practices,
where scientific knowledge and normative commitment are used in shaping
policy (2012:100-102). This is one example of such an occurrence.
Diagram provides an overview of complexity of information flow for ocean
acidification, which scientists manage through the international RUG.
58 | P a g e
Source: Schematic illustration of methods of information flow to policy makers (Turley, 1999)
Participant naming and organisation affiliations
This table is an anonymised list of study participants by domain segment who
hold positions that are either Senior or Director Level. Their names are
replaced by using the anonymised naming convention of marine scientist and
letter; A, B, C…etc. For example, marine scientist A is segmented under UK and
EU conservation and NGO organisations and is from the organisation Seaweb.
This participant is a member of RUG and is affiliated to other seafood and
shellfish organisations which may affect his/ her orientation.
There has been no requirement to anonymise organisational memberships.
Most are committed to RUG in knowledge dissemination about complex ocean
acidification issues. However, Defra and DECC as UK government organisations
remain outside of this group. In addition, some participants have
memberships into UN international legal groups such as the UNFCCC and CBD.
59 | P a g e
Participant discourses derived from interviews will be referred to in future
chapters by their anonymised naming convention.
Participants listed by segment, main and affiliated organisation and
anonymised naming convention
Parent domain
Government
Organisation and
anonymised naming
convention (Marine
scientist A,B,C…etc.)
RUG member
Other organisation
affiliation
Child domain
UK and EU conservation and
NGO organisations
Seaweb
Marine scientist A
Yes Seafood and shellfish
industries
Child domain
UK and EU conservation and
NGO organisations
IUCN UK
Marine scientist B
Yes UNFCCC, CBD
Child domain
UK and EU conservation and
NGO organisations
IUCN Germany
Marine scientist C
Yes BIOACID, UNFCCC, CBD.
Child domain
UK and EU conservation and
NGO organisations
Scottish Natural
Heritage
Marine scientist D
Yes EPOCA
Child domain
Academia type ii
(Members belonging to
academic research on behalf
of central government and
quangos organisations but
work directly with the
marine environment)
PLM, UKOA research
lead
Marine scientist E
Yes EPOCA
Child domain
UK and EU conservation and
NGO organisations
Greenpeace
Marine scientist F
Yes CBD
Child domain
UK government participants
(Government quango or
inner office members)
DECC
Marine scientist G
(orientation towards
ocean acidification
research)
Yes UKOA (£12m), AVOID
Child domain
Academia type i
(Members belonging to
academic research on behalf
UEA, UKOA research
lead
Marine scientist H
Yes EPOCA, CBD, IPCC
60 | P a g e
Table 5: All domains and anonymised participants by segment
of central government and
quangos organisations but
do not work directly within
the marine environment)
Child domain
UK government participants
(Government quango or
inner office members)
Defra
Marine scientist I
No UKOA (£12m with
NERC)
Child domain
Academia type ii
(Members belonging to
academic research on behalf
of central government and
quangos organisations but
work directly with the
marine environment)
Bristol, UKOA research
lead
Marine scientist J
Yes CBD
Child domain
Other, legal firm (removed)
Initial sample from
environmental legal
firm (removed from
study, as the themes
generated were
irrelevant to the
context of the study)
61 | P a g e
Chapter 5 Data coding
Data collection and coding procedures
Data is collected from initial pilot interviews during the construction phase and
comparison, analysis and verification of the data has begun, data is compared
and categorised into high level units, defining and further refining the research
questions and sub-questions from the major themes. Iterative comparison of
interview data and high level analysis of themes and patterns reveals couplings
between climate change and ocean acidification at scientific and policy levels.
There are inter-discursive tensions as to whether the two should be framed
together or separated. The interview approach is formalised and research
guidance questions outlined from new information already collected from
data. Note that while interview questions are prepared in advance, they are
only used where required to guide the interview, rather than to consume it.
These questions may be modified and are only used to generate discursive
themes and categories that are relevant to the research questions.
Cumulative production of data is transcribed, segmented and coded into
meaningful analytical units, revealing emergent themes from primary
interviews. The pilot sample and three additional research scientist
participants are well positioned to add to the research knowledge. Contact is
maintained by email and telephone for clarification purposes about interview
data. Hand notes and electronic memos are created and used in tandem with
further categorisation, data deconstruction and identifying further; similarities
and disparities, areas of concern or value judgement are modelled into
conception of risk and solution pathways.
62 | P a g e
From further interviews, sequenced themes begin to appear reflecting
propositions that collectively produce dominant themes in narrative form.
Propositions are functional statements that reflect cognitions such as values or
opinions of participants and contribute their part of the story to overarching
themes that when clustered together form categories within each narrative.
Higher and lower level categories are generated using shortened words or
letters as codes. Some codes reflect points of view of some participants, but
for others, when verified against organisational documentation, map to an
organisational line, indicative of whether the dominant line is threatened by
those with alternate ideas of the current status quo. Categories are
segmented by narrative function. Assessed by how they are energised and
whether they are likely to be sustained, taking into account discursive
challenges and alternate storylines that may threaten a particular course of
action. Example coded mappings for Marine Scientists A and D can be found
under Appendix 2.
All propositional data is coded into three levels and further clustered by group
or individual marine scientist perspective reflecting their individual and group
storylines, leading to orientation towards narrative problem or solution.
“…a storyline is a condensed statement summarising complex narratives,
used by people as shorthand…” Margo Van den Brink et al 2006 on
Hajer.
While some storylines within each narrative may be contradictory, they are
useful in that when reconstructed provide specific viewpoints about a likely
course of action. Constructed data dictionaries defining all codes and
63 | P a g e
corresponding marine scientist respective meanings are found at the back of
this document under Appendix 3.
Once all new categories are saturated and knowledge gaps are obsolete,
deconstructing and coding the data continues with further focus on granularity
of information. This drives out different meanings and counter-opinions from
differing propositional viewpoints, before reconstructing and mapping
categories for evaluation in narrative form (Bernard and Ryan, 2010).
Data analysis and rationale for codes
Four categories identified, are reduced to defining codes, acting as fixed causal
pathways, reflecting individual and collective concerns and preferred solutions
for participants from analysed data. These codes are referred to as Level 1,
independent variables. The meaning of each code remains the same
throughout the reconstruction of the narrative. Level 1 codes, have lower level
hierarchical coded categories assigned to them, which are changeable and
reflect participants’ propositional orientation to particular storylines. Level 2
and 3 codes are referred to later in this section. Data dictionary information
for all codes is outlined later in the body of this document and further details
can be found in the Appendix 3.
Independent problem variables, CCPNARRA (climate change problem
narrative), identifies concerns with current framings which may lead to
another solution pathway. OAUNPOV (ocean acidification uncertain point of
view) reflects uncertainty of the ocean acidification narrative; more
information is required before making a solution pathway decision. This
variable has the potential to behave as a possible pathway disruptor away
64 | P a g e
from the participant’s original position to a new solution trajectory changing
discursive dynamics. Both these variables are analysed as risk variables only.
OACHNGPOV (problem, ocean acidification change point of view),
demonstrates elements within the ocean acidification narrative, changes
conception of risk and shifts point of view in light of new evidence. When
mapped to a level 2, dependent variable reflects a concerning problem
pathway in light of new information from the ocean acidification narrative.
CCPOVOP (climate change point of view original position) is a conceived
solution pathway, when mapped to a dependent 2 variable reflects no change
in conception from the existing hegemonic position on climate change held by
the UK government. Dominant viewpoints are verified through UK
government, Defra and DECC policy documentation and other materials from
their websites (Defra 2012, DECC online, 2013). CCPOVOP code is analysed as a
black box assumption, similar to Hajer’s idea of discursive closure, where
conception of a problem is resolved and requires no further analysis (Fischer
on Sabatier 2010:100-107) and information is taken as fact. Similarly, black
boxing refers to propositions taken as facts, which are beyond question (Callon
and Latour, 1981; Hajer2000:271-272 on Callon and Latour).
OACHNGPOV solution (ocean acidification change point of view), reflects
change in participants point of view in light of new information from the ocean
acidification narrative. When mapped to a dependent 2 variable, reflects
participant viewpoint and effects preferred solution pathway.
65 | P a g e
Level 2 codes are dependent variables are contingent; the meaning of each
code varies as participants understand existing problems and current and
future solutions subjectively. By hooking a level 2 code onto a level 1,
emphasies more detail than level 1 codes, about a participant’s orientation
towards risk or solution. There are some cases where level 2 codes are
coupled with other level 2 codes to emphasise orientation (demonstrated later
in this section). To recount, risk and social justice is used to determine a
person’s orientation of the situation. For example, hegemonic discourses for
climate change link economic growth as black-box pathways. Participants’
concerns are assessed through the storylines they use. Existing climate change
storylines assume orientation towards current hegemonic problem diagnosis.
Using the ocean acidification narrative, changes conception of risk from the
norm and shifts point of view to new evidence in light of the new narrative.
Solution is conceived as either existing climate change approach or new
approach in light of the new ocean acidification narrative.
Uniqueness of group or individual perspective is coded further. Positive
numbers used to align the way a participant sees something, holds a certain
perspective serving to construct unique narratives or viewpoints. Meanings
for example, signify a point of view, counter opinions signify a counter
viewpoint and usage signifies common usage, also known as black-box
assumptions or Hajer’s discursive closure.
Examples below describe how Usage, Meanings and Counter Opinions define
orientation by number.
66 | P a g e
Example 1:
The data dictionary refers to ocean acidification as ACIDIFICATION (code ACID).
Usage is used to account for common usage terms or phrases indicative of the
way Acidification is referred to in general discourse.
Usage 1 - pH levels are directly measurable and there is general discursive
closure amongst scientists that ocean acidification is occurring.
Usage 2 – intention to use term ‘acidification’, rather than de-alkalise as
acidification resonates with individuals and policymakers. Both terms are
correct, expressing different ways of communicating the problem.
Example 2:
The data dictionary defines Biodiversity (code BIODIVERS) in various ways with
meanings expressed as points of view and counter opinions. Further meanings
for BIODIVERS can be found in the data dictionary.
Meaning 1 - Anthropogenic CO2 and its effects on the three stressors effecting
climate will affect life forms on earth causing mass extinction events. (Marine
scientist B)
Counter opinion 1 – Defending societal wealth and GDP is more important than
defending biodiversity (See GDP for definition, Marine scientist H, Marine
scientist J).
Level 3, dependent variable codes used sometimes to provide further
breakdown of meanings, are more granular than level 2 codes. Independent or
67 | P a g e
linked to a level 1 code, renders them meaningless. Rather, they are blended
with level 2 codes and articulate perspective and preferred course of action.
Further codes describing orientation of narratives as political, scientific or
neutral (PSN) and their corresponding functions are outlined in the examples
below:
Example 1:
The data dictionary refers to ocean acidification as ACIDIFICATION (code ACID).
The term ACID has the same meaning as de-alkalise, but used instead to
convey a PSN (political orientation). Using narratives politically (either
unconsciously or intentionally) signals to policymakers that intervention or
active agency is required (Hajer 2000). This narrative functions in two ways; to
communicate the science to lay people and as a warning of the dangers that
come with an acidifying ocean.
Example 2:
Other codes can be used in conjunction with level 2 and 3 dependent variables,
to signify more detailed discursive orientation. The code COPROD for example,
refers to ‘co-production’ activities, where experts within the scientific domain
are involved in shaping policy, (Hulme, 2012:101.) making value judgements to
assess problems such as societal risks posed by ocean acidification and climate
change.
Corresponding data dictionaries can be found in the Appendices at the back
of this document.
68 | P a g e
Dictionary name Dictionary description/
usage
Available under
Appendix 3
Problem usage domain,
conception of risk
Dictionary of level 1 data
codes and meaning
3, table 8
Solution usage domain,
conception appropriate
course of action.
Dictionary of level 1 data
code and meaning.
Black box assumption
(existing climate change
pathway and UK government
coalition line).
3, table 9
Solution usage domain,
conception appropriate
course of action
Dictionary of level 1 data
code and meaning
3, table 10
Solution or Problem usage
domain, conception
appropriate course of action
Dictionary of level 2
dependent variable data
codes and meanings
3, table 11
Solution or Problem usage
domain, conception
appropriate course of action
Dictionary of level 3
dependent variable data
codes and meanings
3, table 11
Discursive orientation Dictionary of codes
expressing organisational
and value judgments of
storylines
3, table 12
Table 6: High level Data Dictionary names and corresponding descriptions
To demonstrate the working principles, an initial deconstruction of conception
of risk associated with ocean acidification Change Point of View narrative
(Level 1, OACHNPOV) for marine scientist A, outlined in tableau form below.
Each level 2 and 3 dependent variable codes are linked with numbers, map to
corresponding data dictionary codes and provides marine scientist A’s
perspective. Each narrative reconstruction follows; again, using corresponding
codes to clarify the orientation for marine scientist A. Easy comparisons are
drawn using the dictionaries to determine consensus and disagreement
amongst scientists. Marine scientist orientation is denoted in italic text.
69 | P a g e
Reconstructions express normative concerns about ocean acidification
Marine scientist A; these narratives express concerns. Corresponding solutions
narrative mappings for ocean acidification can be found under Appendix 4.
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2/3 LEVEL 2
Problem
RISK
OACHNGPOV
KNOWIDS
6(1i)
+x
POLSYS
(1) +x
ECOSYH (1)
(5)
+x
Code
definition
Ocean
Acidification
changed
point of view
in light of
new evidence
Knowledge
dissemination/
denier
communities
Political
system
Ecosystem
Health
Table 7: A deconstruction of conception of problem propositions for marine scientist A
PROBLEM RISK (1), OACHNGPOV
Narrative reconstructions by storyline express normative concerns framed in
terms of conception of risk. OACHNPOV for marine scientist A shifts in light of
new evidence in relation to the ocean acidification narrative.
KNOWDIS 6(1i) + x
Normative concern: information contamination, changing the meaning of ocean
acidification and effective corrective action approach.
Knowledge dissemination/ denier communities, Marine Scientist A provides an
explanation
Risks that include other domains in discourse strategies cause information to be
70 | P a g e
mixed or contaminated, thereby diluting ocean acidification science and
information integrity. Denier communities are gathering momentum. Meaning
6(1i) – KNOWLEDGE, DENIER COMMUNITIES (also see ALTNARRA code)
Consensus between marine scientists A and B.
POLSYS
Normative concern: current policy architecture; governance and processes are not
equipped to address ocean acidification
Political system + x, Marine Scientist A provides an explanation
The science problems are understood, but the big elephant in the room is the
policy question, where there are existing gaps that need to be resolved. Meaning
1- POLSYS. Marine scientist A
ECOSYH (1) (5)
Normative concern: policy response does not match the scientific evidence.
Ecosystem Health + x, Marine Scientist A provides an explanation
There is evidence that ocean acidification is affecting the health and lifespan of
marine biota, where 80% are not surviving into adulthood. (Bridges et al,
2001:11, 13, 25). Meaning 1 – ECOSYH Consensus between Marine Scientists
A and D.
We have enough evidence that reveals risks which support the ocean
acidification case, so current inaction for effective policymaking and
environmental protection is unacceptable, even if there is an absence of scientific
evidence. Meaning 5 – ECOSYH Consensus between Marine Scientists A and E.
71 | P a g e
Using storylines above, referring back to coded mappings with interview details for
marine scientist A to provide additional context, conception of risk is assessed in
narrative form.
While marine scientist A is familiar with climate change, ocean acidification is the
main cause for concern and all statements for marine scientist A are framed
reflecting reduced ocean pH storyline. This becomes a rhetorical line, appealing
action to address the effects of the problem, providing main focus for debate.
Lessons are learned from climate change, and denier communities are seen as
problematic. Scientists A and B agree. No scientists oppose this viewpoint. Marine
scientist A believes that policy for ocean acidification is yet to be addressed and that
there is enough evidence about ecosystem health (Scientists A and E) for action to
take place. Scientists A and D raise ecosystem health as a concern.
The Ecosystem Health story is used by more than one marine scientist within the
dataset, suggesting that this storyline is being energised. If it becomes routinised, it
could be conceived as fact and may achieve permanence within this discourse
coalition.
The data and organisational documentation provides context, conservationists are
energising this storyline over other coalitions.
Preferred solution pathway for (Level 1, OACHNPOV) is reconstructed in Appendix 4,
for marine scientist A. Using ocean acidification themes to frame the solution, rather
than climate change, this scientist orientates towards biodiversity and behaviour
change solution storylines and advocates support for the work of the Convention of
Biodiversity organisation. Some scientists from conservation and academic domains
collectively view such themes and storylines as important pathways to address
ocean acidification. A further mapping of these storylines to their organisational
72 | P a g e
websites demonstrates that the biodiversity storyline is already sustained amongst
these communities and act as a strong challenger to other discursive domains.
However, behaviour change storylines are yet to gather momentum for ocean
acidification.
Data coding
All research data, once analysed is interpretive (Bernard and Ryan, 2010),
discussed later in this document under Chapter 6; Research and Discussion.
Attempts are made to code and categorise data as close as possible to the data
collected from the interview transcripts. By identifying categories that are
deduced from the words or phrases already present within transcripts,
enhances data validity or soundness that reflects the position of the
participant.
Data reliability
Data reliability checks for discourse formation are part of the research design.
Whilst there may be some weaknesses in the data, given that it is difficult to
account for and interpret every contiguous event during the study, the
assumption is that data is reliable using the checks that are in place (Bernard
and Ryan, 2010). Refer to Methods section; reliability and verification, which
forms part of the research design.
73 | P a g e
Chapter 6 Results and discussion
Overview of study
There are three dominant and interconnecting themes, drawn from the
interview datasets. Themes are outlined below:
(i) Geo-engineering and corresponding framings (linked to risk/ social
justice)
(ii) Revolutionising politics and corresponding framings (linked to risk/
social justice)
(iii) Behaviour change (linked to risk/ social justice/ communications)
Narrative storylines and the language used, forms an integral part of the
analysis as well as the institutional social practices of participants and their and
private concerns are analysed, which provides indication of likely solution
pathways for ocean acidification for this group. Participant concerns are
assessed within the parent and child domains outlined in Chapter 4, Methods.
The first solution category, geo-engineering has storylines, including ocean
acidification under a treatment pathway for climate change. This pathway is
hegemonic, and has been debated at UK, EU and global levels and is an option
that the UK is taking very seriously as an “emergency strategy to cool the
planet” (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2010:82).
Early discourses in the early 21st
century are moving away from theoretical
descriptions of geo-engineering for purposes of mitigating climate change to
discussions that are entrenched in practical application, about governance
roles and responsibilities, options for geo-engineering and assessment of risk
(Pachauri and Reisinger 2007; IPCC 2011c; House of Commons Science and
74 | P a g e
Technology Committee 2010; Royal Society 2009; CBD, 2009; Garrett, IEA 2011;
Marine scientists D,E,H,I)
Other themes highlight alternate storyline pathways that call for
revolutionising politics and societal behaviour change, which could act as
discursive disruptors to hegemonic discourses favouring a technocratic
solution (Marine scientists A, B, C, F, Uury 2010a, Uury 2010b).
Geo-engineering and corresponding framings (linked to risk/ social justice)
Before delving into the various themes and framings for geo-engineering, it is
worth highlighting the way in which geo-engineering is defined by leading
institutions. This will provide a broad-level view of how it is seen at the
institutional layer by multi-stakeholders, before revealing how some study
participants have influenced some discourses and laws within these
institutions.
Concerns are assessed by some participants about industrialised forms of geo-
engineering as a domain that remains largely untested and therefore is
unfamiliar territory.
Introduction, geo-engineering definitions
CBD
There are various theoretical techniques for geo-engineering which are said to
have the potential to either mitigate CO2 from the atmosphere or at source, or
to reduce the effect of the sun’s radiation, reducing global temperature and
maximising earth’s albedo processes. The first refers to Carbon dioxide
removal (CDR) techniques for removal of CO2 and the latter are known as Sun
Radiation Management (SRM) techniques. CDR discourses frame techniques
as bio-energy, afforestation, reforestation and changing land management
75 | P a g e
practices and more technocratic discourses about largely untested
industrialised processes which capture and sequester carbon dioxide in the
form of a reservoir, likely to be stored below ground or under the seabed.
SRM techniques are said not to remove atmospheric CO2 but
rather have the potential to alter earth’s temperature using
sun reflecting mirrors. This technique is also untested.
There seems to be general agreement from interviews and
authored papers that both techniques hold risks and benefits.
There are several storylines within these themes: biodiversity
loss and protection, food security and the economy in terms of
GDP. Such narratives and their storylines (linked to geo-
engineering discourses) reveal whether the geo-engineering
approach is understood as risky or beneficial. These narratives
and their storylines are mapped back to core institutional
dominant dialogues found in secondary source documentation
(Bodle, Horman, Schiele et al 2012; Kruger 2011; Drexhage and
Murphy, 2010; IPCC 2011c). This is important as it identifies
dominant geo-engineering plotlines, the way in which themes
are conceived by participants and any consistencies and
divergences with what is said by interviewed participants is
noted to ascertain any dynamic that may alter the status quo.
Within the interview datasets, there are clear disparities
between participants’ opinions analysed through
Counter-intra -
opinions
“All methods have
geo-political
problems, with
winners and
losers.”
“It might not be as
bad, if we don’t do
anything…. We
would have a
different world
climate which
would be
advantageous for
some and
disadvantageous
for others.”
Marine scientist H
(Supports CBD
organisational line)
76 | P a g e
corresponding storylines about the feasibly of industrialised geo-engineering
as a solution to climate change and/ or ocean acidification. Storylines are
mapped to their social backgrounds to establish whether social practices
influence decision-making.
Some participants interviewed are not willing to discuss geo-engineering in its
industrialised form, a theme that is rationalised off the discursive table,
preferring to talk about alternate options, with focus on more natural
sequestration or behavioural mitigation approaches. This contingent is mostly
from the conservationist/ NGO domain and who holds a marine discourse
orientation and preference for an ecosystems approach (Marine scientists A,
B, C, D).
Of those who are willing to discuss geo-engineering as a viable avenue for
climate change or ocean acidification mitigation techniques (all five
government participants), two of the five reveal obvious levels of discomfort
with storylines that deviate away from the technocratic social norm of that
group; Climate is extremely sensitive and complex and small perturbations in
atmospheric gases or the suns radiation balance can lead to large climatic
knock-on effects (Archer 1960:69-80). Climate manipulation would create a
different world climate which would advantage some and disadvantage others
(Marine scientists H, I).
All discourses that favour or partially favour a geo-engineering approach are
firmly rooted in concerns for mooted national and international political CO2
negotiations, which have led to a trajectory of continued international growth
of fossil fuel usage causing the “likelihood” (Marine scientists F, H, I), of a
runaway climate scenario that includes global temperature increase and
reduction in ocean pH.
77 | P a g e
This would take us beyond the defined safe temperature limit
into unknown territory of 3,4,5,6 degrees (Marine scientists H, I).
This view is supported by the international science community
and can be found in IPCC literature (Pachauri and Reisinger 2007);
“we are likely to see temperatures increase by up to 6.4 degrees
centigrade,” at current CO2 output rates. All government participants from are
more likely to use language of temperature indicative of descriptions
associated with changing climate (Marine scientists E, G, H, I), while others are
more predisposed to marine or ocean pH discourses.
Two government participants’ marine scientists E, G have a strong orientation
towards marine research. Language of temperature could be a result of
cultural practices and hegemonic language used within upper government
subsumes ocean acidification within climate change solution pathways (House
of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2010; IPCC 2011c). Such a
framing therefore includes storylines for ocean acidification within existing
climate change and runaway climate scenario discourses. Government
organisations are dogged by bureaucracy and their structures are generally
fixed. Storylines energised early are more likely to be maintained and
stabilised and less likely to be reversed or changed (Biermann, Pattberg and
Zelli 2010:146-162). For government scientists to effect social change outside
of the fixed structures networking groups such as the ocean acidification
reference user group (RUG) brings together concerned scientists which enables
flexibility outside of government domains, where new storylines are energise
and invoked as demonstrated in Chapter 3, literature review.
Counter-intra-
opinions
“It’s all a load of
arses!”
(Marine scientist I)
78 | P a g e
Climate change framing linked to economic storyline s
Further evidence where ocean acidification is included within climate change
storylines relates to the language of classical welfare economics used by some
government participants benchmarking two degrees against economic welfare.
Marine scientists H and I express normative concerns that by going beyond the
safe two degree limit, would pose risk to gross domestic product (GDP) and
that any solution pathway for ocean acidification or climate change should
mitigate a trajectory of going beyond this safe limit. Neither participant works
directly with the marine environment which may affect their perception of
societal risk.
Some participants from the conservation domain reserve judgement about
assumptions relating to what constitutes risk, preferring to move away from
discourses in climate change and GDP, with calls into the UNFCCC to consider
different measurable indicators for ocean acidification, citing storylines, which
may have different dangerous thresholds (on the research agenda) that should
be considered in mitigation targets (UNFCCC, n.d:9-12, Marine scientist C).
Geo-engineering preferences and legal pathways
Most commonly discussed geo-engineering techniques, considered to have
most practical application are carbon capture storage (CDR technique) and
solar radiation mirrors (SRM technique). While carbon capture storage could
be used to mitigate both climate change and ocean acidification by removing
CO2 at source or from the atmosphere, marine scientist H, believes SRM is a
good option in controlling solar radiation and global heating, used in
addressing concerns for warming oceans, one of the three stressors that
scientists finds exacerbates ocean acidification (supported by Turley and
79 | P a g e
Williamson 2012). The UK government however, prefers a CDR (CCS) method
given that there are legal instruments available that could be expanded for CCS
(Kruger 2011).
Carbon capture storage (CCS)
Legal mechanisms
The UNFCCC are looking at the potential for carbon capture storage, managed
under its Kyoto protocol clean development mechanism (CDM), a legal
architecture used in mitigation of climate change. It is believed that the CDM
architecture could be used to benefit ocean acidification as well; CDM
architecture is designed to mitigate CO2, produced by industrialised countries
that offset fossil fuel usage in exchange for funding clean technology projects
in developing countries (UNFCCC, n.d). This structure is the dominant UNFCCC
solution pathway for climate change. CDM is linked to storylines for
sustainable development which have gathered momentum under an economic
growth pathway framed in social justice frame for developing countries
(UNFCCC, n.d; IPCC Climate Change WG3, 2007a). If geo-engineering is
included under CDM, it would help to frame it as a theme with proverbial
reckoning.
The UNFCCC are looking at the potential for CCS (carbon capture storage)
under the CDM (Marine Scientist F). Furthermore, review of how ocean
acidification is measured, not in terms of temperature as with changing
climate, but in terms of how acidity is quantified; pH which measures the
activity of hydrogen ions (Harrould-Kolieb and Dorothée Herr, UNFCCC, nd) or
the lysocline depth, indicating the saturation state of calcium carbonate and
the ability for creatures to form shells. This is important as there may be a
80 | P a g e
requirement to modify emissions targets accordingly (Marine scientist C,
UNFCCC, n.d:2-11).
Ocean acidification as a disruptor
Worried about risks of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 on ocean health
and cascading climate and social impacts, marine scientist E, in 2005 gave
presentations with focus on ocean health, rather than climate to Defra, DTI
and stakeholders in the public and private sectors about scientific findings.
Publically, she drew reference to changing ocean chemistry naming the
problem ocean acidification rather than ocean de-alkalising. Both terms refer
to reduced ocean pH, but “acidification” signifies a bitterness placing
ecosystems at risk. This term “resonates” (marine scientist A, E) the meaning
of ill-health to wider audiences, as a problem requiring urgent action.
As a result, the London Protocol overturned a law to enable transboundary
CO2 transfer (Garrett, IEA, 2011) allowing access for CO2 storage below the
seabed. This law originally denied access to the
seabed, but it was believed that with agreed controls
in place for ocean storage of CO2 liquid below depths
of 3km would create a CO2 lake. It is thought, this
would safeguard benthic communities, seabed
dwelling organisms that are said to form the basis of
the food chain. The law was passed which would
facilitate discourses in the practical application of
geo-engineering CCS solutions (Bodle, Homan, Schiele
et al 2012; Garrett, IEA 2011; marine scientists E, F, I).
This is an example of normative behaviour enabling
“It seems that ocean
acidification is providing
another argument to push
ahead with CCS. The argument
says that it is better if CO2 goes
into the seabed rather than the
sea, which is going to happen if
it goes into the air.”(Marine
scientist C).
81 | P a g e
change in policy. In addition, ocean acidification became a driver to managing
law that effects both climate change and ocean acidification.
However, evident by climate change storylines of warming oceans and
concerns for the three stressors, government marine scientists G, H and I
frame CCS as benefit to climate change mitigation with ocean acidification as
the additional driver.
Such normative behaviour by marine scientist E changed the way in which
policymakers and scientists discuss geo-engineering. Whether framed as a
pathway to mitigate climate change or ocean acidification, moving away from
theoretical storylines about what could be achieved to more practical ones
about which options to choose and how to apply techniques.
Practical application – benefits and positive frami ngs
There are clear divides. The complexity of CCS, its positive and negative
framings reveals different ways in which the application
of CCS is understood.
Practical application – concerns and negative frami ngs
However, other marine scientists share negative
perspectives for CCS, with more cautionary claims that
introduce a myriad of technical, financial, biodiversity
and governance concerns mired in complexity. Marine
scientist H is a government scientific researcher who
deviates at times from the government line on CCS,
while marine scientist F is the only scientist outside of
Counter opinion 1 – “There are
many open questions to do
with overall governance;
obligations, liabilities and
monitoring. CDM countries
are not likely to have the
capacity to do any of the
monitoring and it is not clear
where the liabilities lie.”
(Marine Scientist F)
82 | P a g e
the government domain who is willing to discuss geo-engineering, but frames
it as highly problematic and not as an option.
Such storylines call for constraint. While CCS in general is seen as least
controversial of the industrialised geo-engineering technologies because it
tackles the CO2 problem before it gets into the atmosphere, some participants
view the application of CCS as impractical and risky. CCS, requires global
governance and operational cooperation. Storylines about complex
infrastructure and leakages provide gloomy speculation
(marine scientists F, H). Technical storylines focus on
existing infrastructure owned by oil companies, as
inadequate, while new infrastructure is costly (marine
scientist B, F, H, supported by Bodle, Homan, Schiele et al
2012).
CCS positive framings call for evangelical urgency to action
sooner rather than later (marine scientists E and I).
Storylines with moral framings of ecosystem (marine scientist E), and GDP
protection (marine scientist I) used as social triggers to action maintain that
CCS is very easy to implement. Existing infrastructure from oil wells could be
used to push liquid CO2 back from below the seabed, from where it was
extracted. This storyline promotes a mental image of a non-complex pathway
with requirements for only half a dozen test pilots prior to implementation.
Any concerns for CO2 leakages from the seabed are allayed by storylines of
trust, credibility and knowledge experts and policies promoting use of best
practice guidelines in implementing CCS (marine scientist I), supported by the
UK government line that recommends learning from the nuclear industry
(Kruger 2011). Such storylines are directly linked to discourses and practices
Counter opinion 2 –
“There will always
be uncertainties. A
single experiment
will only recognise
a certain number of
variables.”
(Marine scientist B)
83 | P a g e
within the government domain, where technocratic approaches to societal
issues have become part of normal practices.
“There seems to be a lot of hype about CCS. It is not as well developed as it
should be by now, because it’s so expensive.” The exploration phase, the
capture of CO2, the infrastructure that you would need to either put it in place
or to modify. The distances, in which you have to transport it, the monitoring
you need to have in place that still hasn’t been defined.” It could cause
Tsunamis’ if CCS is implemented incorrectly by pumping CO2 through
geological structures at high pressure could displace reservoirs and acquifires
below the seabed and impact locally and even further afield” (Marine Scientist
F).
Such technical concerns link CCS to negative narratives steeped in framings of
social justice highlighting groups that would be advantaged and disadvantaged.
Other concerns are linked to consumer concerns and rising energy consumer
prices, which would be required to pay for the infrastructure and operations
(Marine scientist H). Other claims concern those in the southern hemisphere
who may find it difficult to support this infrastructure technically, operationally
and financially (Marine scientists F,H, supported by Bodle, Homan, Schiele et
al 2012).
84 | P a g e
CBD, who has a moratorium on all industrialised geo-engineering methods
frames CCS as immoral. Ecological storylines chronicle impacts to biodiversity
of an industrialised geo-engineering approach expressing concerns for CO2
leakages. Other storylines highlight
equity and fairness that characterise
those in the west
as disadvantaging
those in the
southern
hemisphere
(marine scientists
F, H)
This storyline
suggests that the
west is turning away from its
obligations to reduce fossil fuel
emissions under the Kyoto protocol
and that those in the southern
hemisphere will be impacted
(Marine scientist G on CBD and ETC, 2012).
Using the same biodiversity theme, the CBD argument is reversed using
storylines in a moral counter-frame; that increasing temperatures will impact
biodiversity (Marine scientist E, G 2012).
“…this solution
only serves to
benefit the
northern white
rich man.”
(Marine scientist
D on CBD and
ETC).
“We need to make the CBD see
sense.” (Marine Scientist E). That if
we are on a trajectory beyond 2
degrees, then CCS as a mitigation tool
could benefit climate change, ocean
acidification and biodiversity. (Marine
Scientists E, G). “ETC is really immoral,
because they wrongly influence the
CBD on geo-engineering decisions. If
we are on a trajectory beyond 2
degrees, then we need to weigh up
whether CCS with its risks, would be
better for biodiversity than increased
global warming.” (Marine scientist G)
85 | P a g e
Thirdly, there are open questions that relate to management of environmental
resources, which are common to everyone and not under ownership. Such
issues refer to transboundary locations, and the sub-surface seabed, which
effect how CO2 is safely stored and monitored. Notions’ of accountability and
monitoring where there is no spatial ownership is thought by some to be
highly complex and risky (Marine scientist F, 2012).
Negative storylines about governance and
transboundary risks remain a dominant counter
theme to CCS as a solution pathway with momentum
for this storyline particularly high among the CBD,
developing countries who are stakeholders of the CBD
and conservationists (Marine scientists C, F, H 2012). Risks and accountabilities
for disposal of CO2 and leakages from the seabed into the marine environment
are storylines that express concerns (Johnston, Santillo and Stringer 1999,
supported by CBD, 2009; Marine scientist H).
“Global governance and liability issues related to storage of CO2 that are highly
complex and questions about how transboundary costs would be managed,
how to dispose of CO2 once it’s been extracted and who would take
responsibility for any leakages.” (Marine Scientist F supported by marine
scientists G, H).
Geo-engineering discussion
With legislation in place (through the London Protocol), this pathway provides
“low hanging fruit” (Kruger 2011) for the UK government to formalise an
industrialised CDR geo-engineering research agenda engagement of multi-
expert led academic and key market-based stakeholders, including energy
”Politically it’s a mess.” (Marine
Scientist F). “Very untidy”
(Marine scientist H)
86 | P a g e
industry leaders who could deliver the solution leveraging existing technical
infrastructure and their skills (Kruger 2011; House of Commons Science and
Technology Committee 2010). This becomes a social contract between small
elite groups, leaving out the general public on whose behalf the state enters
into this agreement. By not engaging other domains in society, new storylines
that have potential to find new solution pathways are dismissed and any
fledgling discussions are removed from policy articles and debates, affecting
news items (Hajer, 1995: 22, Uury, Marine scientist A, C). Communicated
through a number of parliamentary and scientific papers, the UK government’s
strategy is to focus on counter-storylines for the weak aspects of geo-
engineering linked to governance (Royal Society 2009, House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee 2010, Kruger 2011).
In recent decades domains such as biotechnology, education and medicine
have become commoditised (Jasanoff 2007:228) and technocratised. These
domains serve to increase the country’s wealth by including GDP measures of
goods and services outputs. In the same way, geo-engineering pathways
would further industrialise CO2, promoting its permanent usage. To invoke a
CCS geo-engineering solution, requires management time, financial investment
in costly infrastructure and costs to build out skills and resourcing. So, such a
solution does not suggest “interim”, but rather increased steps to industrialise
the CO2 market, thus locking us further into “systemic carbon practices” (Uury
2010a, Jasanoff 2007). Furthermore, some believe that the state leaves out
society in finding a solution to the problem (Uury 2010a, marine scientist C).
87 | P a g e
Geo-engineering could become a disruptive technology pathway which
prevents the required social change to tackle complex problems like climate
change and ocean acidification.
Concerns with current pathways
Marine scientist B is troubled by the way in which CO2 is so entangled in
almost every human action (supported by marine scientists A, C, F, Uury
2010a), reiterating PETM storylines used as an ocean acidification analogue
that reinforces mass extinction event narratives that some suggest have
already begun. Marine scientists A, B, C and F, call for societal behavioural and
policy decision-making changes. “The science problems are understood, but
the big elephant in the room is the policy question, where there are existing
gaps that need to be resolved.” (Marine Scientist A)
Problems with short-term election cycles
The UK political system makes “decisions [that] are typified by short election
cycles, which are incompatible with…” …longer term…”environmental
problems”… and the well-being of future generations (Marine Scientists B,
supported by Marine Scientists C, E, F). Ongoing longer-term solutions are
required which fall outside of the short five-year electoral timescale, but this
approach is understood to be risky politically, given decisions are typified by
short election cycles. So politicians are reluctant to make decisions that
protect future generations (Marine Scientist F).
Such a political system is evolutionary, merely responding to events and their
symptoms as they occur. “Policy is generally evolutionary. When events
88 | P a g e
happen, irrational decisions become rational very quickly. Legislation is driven
by events, so at some point events occur which leads to a revolution in policy
making” (Marine Scientist B). Marine scientists A, C, E and F believe that
ocean acidification narratives could be disruptive in bringing about social
change and wider emissions cuts to counter our inefficient practices.
Ocean acidification is not yet well ensconced on the policy agenda, but could
help sway the behaviour change argument and benefit climate change by
focussing on efficiencies and local effects on communities, bringing greater
CO2 emissions reductions (Marine Scientists B, C, and F). But there needs to
be changes in political thinking if society is to act sustainably (Marine Scientists
B, C, F).
These can be achieved in several ways using current political infrastructure.
“Courageous” leaders are required at the helm (Marine scientist F). GDP only
storylines that use “abnormally large” and “meaningless figures” that are “non-
engaging” for the average person should be removed. Such storylines miss out
other forms of wellbeing which traditional communities thrived. The
ecological footprint, provides assurance that ecosystems goods and services
are in good health for the benefit of mental health, happiness and well-being
of non- human species and future generations (Marine scientists B, F;
Abdullah, Michaelson and Shah et al 2012).
Without realistic numbers for the average “fish and chip buyer” and storylines
that convey how the problem affects people at the individual level, voluntary
emissions cuts will fail as they have done with climate change (Marine
Scientist A). New societal storylines are required to enable better individual
89 | P a g e
and group level bottom-up decision making, rather than removing them from
this domain (Marine Scientists A, F)
Opportunities for further research could be explored within the societal
domain, using social as well as scientific thought. Uury believes that policy
requires transformation into “post-carbon thinking” to remove “interlocking
carbon practices”. A more equal and experimental society with the ability for
local decision making would not only empower local people but would
alleviate finances and resources to enact social change (2010a).
Marine Scientist A believes that refreshing storylines are required that
“resonate” with people, specific to them and their different social groups.
Understanding communities who will be affected by ocean acidification and
local narratives within and outside of science could generate new case studies
and storylines that will move people into action and inform policy
considerations enabling multi-pathway solutions that include communities and
re-norm society into more sustainable practices. The shellfish community is
concerned and may find harvesting an issue because of ocean acidification.
Furthermore, ocean acidification could be used to “build bridges” and mobilise
MP’s and MEP’s into action where climate change narratives have failed.
Conclusion
Whether ocean acidification could be a driver to more proactive policy decision
making for cutting carbon emissions seems only theoretical. The UK coalition
government’s economic narrative dominates news items and literature with
recycled rhetorical storylines of industrialisation and growth, calling for
increases in GDP at any cost. Storylines to resolve climate change are likely to
have the economy at the heart, so using industrialised CCS geo-engineering
90 | P a g e
techniques will fit this overarching economic narrative. Ocean acidification
storylines will become subsumed in discourses for climate change under the
government solution pathway for CO2 mitigation. However, scientific ocean
acidification storylines have already be instrumental in overturning law within
existing social practices, providing access to the seabed to store CO2 from CCS
engineering techniques. This approach offers the potential for social change to
some extent by creating a new technocratic industry.
Conservation and NGO communities who find discomfort in geo-engineering
choose to separate the ocean acidification storyline from climate change, so
the discursive debate about the appropriate solution pathway remains open.
Any collisions with climate change storylines are unwelcome, especially as this
domain has fallen foul of mixed and inconsistent storylines.
They hope that ocean acidification can provide new storylines. By keeping
storylines separate, they could act as discursive disruptors to the status quo,
bringing revolutionary ways of thinking that could affect social changes.
91 | P a g e
References
Abdallah.S., Michaelson,.J., Shah.S, Stoll.L.,and Marks.N., NEF.,2012. The Happy Planet Index.,2012
Report. Economics as if people and the planet mattered. [Available at]
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/assets/happy-planet-index-report.pdf Accessed] 12th
July 2012.
Archer.D., 1960. Global Warming Understanding the Forecast. [Book] ed unspecified, published
2007. Blackwell publishing, Oxford. Padstow. Pp17-23:69-80:129-131)
Bernard.R., Ryan.G.W.,2010. Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. [Online
Book] [Available at]
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dt3BN68AjHwC&printsec=frontcover&sour
ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed] 7th
August, 2012.
Biermann, Pattberg and Zelli., 2010. Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2: The architecture of global climate governance: setting the
stage. Pp20-33. Chapter 5:61-64. Chapter 10. The role and relevance of networked climate
governance. Pp146-163.
Böcher, M., Giessen, L. and Kleinschmit, D. (Eds) (2008) Environmental and Forest
Governance: The Role of Discourses and Expertise. Proceedings of the International
Conference, Göttingen 2007. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen. [Available at]
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1fJ_nzBplfgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Environmental+and+Forest+Governance:+The+Role+of+Discourses+and+Expertise&source=bl&ots=GSOZ9MI7BV&sig=QOTlUsHnKF0gcqzOxQDAaNa4XVE&hl=en&ei=ucqMTJThKMy64AbbrOD1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false>Bosselmann [Accessed] 20/05/2012]
Bradshaw G. A. and Borchers J. G., 2000. Uncertainty as Information: Narrowing the
Science-policy Gap . Ecology and Society Conservation Ecology Vol 4, no1, Article 7. [Online]
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/art7/inline.html#TheRoleOfCognitiveDis
sonanceAndVolition [Accessed] 22nd
July 2012.
2009 Bravo, M. T., 'Voices from the Sea Ice and the Reception of Climate Impact Narratives', Journal
of Historical Geography, 35(2): 256-278. Feature issue on Climate Change Narratives. [Based on IBG
92 | P a g e
2006 Plenary Session on 'Narratives of Climate Change' with William Cronon, Richard Hamlyn, Diana
Liverman, and Sverker Sörlin]. [Available at]
http://www.citeulike.org/group/13619/article/5467431 [Accessed] 24th June 2012
Bruntland commission report. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
Our Common Future 1987:15-247. Accessed 25th
August, 2012. Available online at:
http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf
Daniel W. Turner, III., 2010. Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Investigators
[PDF]. The Qualitative Report Volume 15 Number 3 M. [Available at]
http://www.engin.umich.edu/teaching/crltengin/engineering-education-research-
resources/turner-qualitative-interview-design.pdf
DECC.,2013. Website [Available at] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change [Accessed] 14th January, 2013.
Defra.,2012. UK Climate Change Risk Assessment: Government Report
[Available at] http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13698-climate-risk-assessment.pdf [Accessed] 20
th August, 2012.
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieba and Dorothée Herr, nd. 2012. Climate Change and Ocean Acidification
Synergies and Opportunities within the UNFCCC
Discussion Paper Accessed: 28th
August. Available at:
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/Climate_change_and_Ocean_acidifciation_-_Synergies_and_opportunities_under_the_UNFCCC_Dec_2_0_0.pdf
EPOCA 7.,No author., 2011. RUG members. [Available at] http://www.epoca-
project.eu/index.php/what-do-we-do/outreach/rug.html [Accessed] 28th
March, 2012.
China Kyoto speech [Ref: Hu Jintao speech on Climate Change, 2009.] Online.
URL:http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Developed+countries+
should+take+up+their+responsibility+and+provide+new%2C+additional%2C+adequat
e+and+predictable+financial+support+to+developing+countries+to+enable+them+to+h
ave+access+to+climate-
friendly+technologies&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
93 | P a g e
[Reference]: Gordon Brown speech to WWF on 19th
November, 2007. Online]
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/equality/environment-and-rural-affairs/gordon-
browns-speech-in-full-$481751.htm
BurneyA.S., 2008:2-10. Inductive and deductive research approach.
Accessed: 28th
August 2012. Available at:
http://www.drburney.net/INDUCTIVE%20&%20DEDUCTIVE%20RESEARCH%20APP
ROACH%2006032008.pdf
Bush, G.W., 2001. Parts of Bush’s political speech 2001 [WWW] Available at: CNN.
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-20/us/gen.bush.transcript_1_joint-session-national-
anthem-citizens?_s=PM:US
Callon, M. and Latour, B. (1981) ‘Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality
and how sociologists help them to do so’ in Knorr-Cetina, K. and Cicourel, A. V. (Eds.) Advances in
Social Theory and Methodology: Toward and Integration of Micro and Macro Sociologies. Routledge,
Boston, Pp 277-303.
No author., 2009. CBD Technical Series no 46. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Scientific Synthesis of the Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Biodiversity. Pp36
Bodle.R., Schiele.S., Horman.G., and Tedsen.,E 2012. CBD Technical Series no 66. Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Part I. Impacts of Climate-Related Geoengineering on Biological
Diversity. Part II. The Regulatory Framework for Climate-Related Geoengineering Relevant to the
Convention on Biological Diversity. [Available at] http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-
ts-66-en.pdf. [Accessed] September 2012
Clarke, N., 2010. Volatile Worlds, Vulnerable Bodies: Confronting Abrupt Climate Change. Theory,
Culture & Society. pp33-34. Available at: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/27/2-31 [Accessed 23rd
July 2012]
94 | P a g e
Clarke,N.,2011. [Online digital lecture recording]. New Storylines for Living with Environmental
Change: Citizens' Perspective. Available at:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/ias/livingwithenvironmentalchange/. [Accessed 31 July 2012]
Coley. D.A., 2011. Energy and Climate Change: Creating a Sustainable Future, [Book] 4th
edition.
Croydon: Wiley pp14-22:59-69.
Daniels .S and Enfield.G.H., 2009. Narratives of climate change: introduction. Journal of historical
geography 35, pp215-222. Historical Geography. Published by Elsevier. [Available at]
www.elsevier.com/locate/jhg
Dean, M.,1999. Governmentality: power and rule in modern society, Sage: London. [Available at]
http://www.citeulike.org/group/13457/article/3389430 [Accessed] 1st
August 2012.
Dessler A.E. and Parsons. E.A., 2010 (2nd
ed). The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change. A
Guide to the Debate. Chap 2. Science, politics and science in politics. Pp36-59. 2nd
edition.
Published by; Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Dey, I.,1993., Qualitative Data Analysis; A User Friendly Guide for Social Scientists [PDF]. Pp 16-
17:53:57:59: 62:69-62:69). [Available at]
http://www.drapuig.info/files/Qualitative_data_analysis.pdf [Accessed] 25th June 2012.
Drexhage and Murphy., 2010. Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012. United
Nations Headquarters Background Paper prepared for consideration by the High Level Panel on
Global Sustainability. [PDF] [Available at]
http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/gsp/docs/GSP1-
6_Background%20on%20Sustainable%20Devt.pdf [Accessed] 12th
June, 2012.
IPCC 2007a. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L.
Miller (eds). Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA.[Available at] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/wg1/ar4_wg1_full_report.pdf [Accessed] 2nd
September, 2012.
95 | P a g e
IPCC 2007b., Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A.
(Eds.) IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.[Available at] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf [Accessed] 2nd
September, 2012.
Edenhofer .O., Pichs-Madruga .R., Sokona .Y., Barros . V., Field.C.,2010. (ed) IPCC 2010
Socio-Economic Scenarios. Workshop Report. Published May 2012 by the IPCC Working Group III
Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany.
[Online] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/IPCC_WoSES_Report_final_web.pdf [Accessed] 26
th August 2012.
IPCCa. 2011. Field.C.B., Barros.V., Stocker.T.F., Dahe.Q., Dokken.D.J., Plattner.G-K. Allen.S.K.,
Mastrandrea.M.D., Tignor.M., Mach.K.J., Midgley.P.M., (ed). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events
and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. [Available at] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-
reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.pdf[ Accessed] 2nd
September, 2012.
IPCC., 2011b. IPCC Workshop on Impacts of Ocean Acidification. Workshop Report. Barros . V.,
Field.C Stocker.T., Dahe, Q., (ed) 2011. [Available at]
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1gFp6Ioo3akNEZwT2hHQVlRWDQ/edit?usp=drive_
web [Accessed] 28th
August 2012.
IPCC 2011c. Edenhofer .O., Pichs-Madruga .R., Sokona .Y., Barros . V., Field.C., Thomas.B.F. , Qin
Dahe, S.,Minx,J., Mach.K., Plattner.G.K., Schlömer.S., Hansen.G., Mastrandrea.M., (ed) 2011
IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering. Lima, Peru. 20-22 June 2011. [Online]
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/EM_GeoE_Meeting_Report_final.pdf
[Accessed] 26th
August 2012.
No author., No date. EPOCA European Project on Ocean Acidification. Cooperation 7. [Online]
http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/what-do-we-do/outreach/rug.html [Accessed
20th June]
Feindt, P.H., Oels, A.,2005. 'Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy
making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. Vol.7, No.3. pp161-173 .[Available at]
http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/discourse-matter-discourse-analysis-
environmental-policy-making/ [Accessed] 1st
August 2012.
96 | P a g e
Fischer, F., 2010:.Reframing Public Policy. 2nd
ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp33-41:86-
91:100-107:161-180.
Garrett.J., International Energy Agency (IEA).,2011. Carbon Capture and Storage the London
Protocol. Options for Enabling Transboundary C02 Capture. Working Paper. [Available at]
http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5kg3n27pfv30.pdf?expires=1365183922&id=id&acc
name=guest&checksum=FDC5754E3A31B21C187CD9EF7D3030FC [Accessed] 12 June
2012.
Gattuso, J.P., Bijma, J., Gehelen, M., Riebesell, U., Turley, C., 2011. Ocean Acidification. Known
Unknowns and Perspectives. [Book Chapter 15]
pp 291-311. Available at: ftp://oceane.obsvlfr.fr/pub/gattuso2/OUP_round2/chapter15_round2.pdf.
[Accessed 21st June 2012]
Gruber.N., 2011. Warming up, turning sour, losing breath: ocean biogeochemistry under global
change. Philosophical Translations
Royal Society, [e-journal] Available at: http://rtsa.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions
[Accessed 9th
August 2012]
Hajer. A. Maarten., 2000. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. 3rd
ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pp8-10:13-19:21-22:42-72:88-89:100-126.
Hajer, M. (2005) „Coalitions, practices, and meaning in environmental politics: from acid rain to BSE‟
in: Howarth, D., and Torfing, J. (eds.) Discourse theory in European politics: identity, policy and
governance, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, 297-315
Hajer, M. (2006) „Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning‟ in: van den Brink, M., and
Metze, T. (eds.) Words matter in policy and planning: discourse theory and method in the social
sciences, Netherlands Geographical Studies 344, Utrecht, KNAG/Nethur, 65-74
9 [Available at]
http://www.maartenhajer.nl/images/stories/20080204_MH_wordsmatter_ch4.pdf
[Accessed] 2nd
June, 2012
97 | P a g e
Helm, 2008, ‘Climate change policy, why has achieved so little be achieved’ [paper] [Available at]
http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/node/671. [Accessed] 2nd
September 2012.
Hulme. M., 2012. Why We Disagree about Climate Change. 6th
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Pp72-197:227-228.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.,2010. The Regulation of Geoengineering.
Fifth Report of Session 2009–10. Published on 18 March 2010 by authority of the House of
Commons. London: The Stationery Office Limited. [Available at]
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf [Accessed]
3rd
September.
IPCC, Climate Change.,2007a. Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 2.1 Framing
issues. Climate change and sustainable development. Chapter 2.3 Risk and Uncertainty. 2.5 2.5
Mitigation, vulnerability and adaptation relationships 2.6 Distributional and equity aspects .
[Online]
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_repor
t_wg3_report_mitigation_of_climate_change.htm. [Accessed] 26th
August 2012.
Keil, R. and Debbané, A. (2005) ‘Scaling discourse analysis: Experiences from Hermanus, South Africa
and Walvis Bay, Namibia’ Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Vol.7, No. 3, 257-276.
[Available at]
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15239080500339786?journalCode=cj
oe20 [Accessed] 29th
May, 2012
Pachauri, R.K., and Reisinger, A., IPCC, AR4, 2007b. Climate Change 2007b Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Available at:]
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf [Accessed 14th
August
2012]
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007c. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
98 | P a g e
[Available at:] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
[Accessed 14th
August 2012]
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, 2007
B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Jasanoff, S., 2007. Designs on Nature. Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. 4th
ed. Princeton University Press. Oxfordshire. Pp13-33:42-67:228:249-255:258-259:264-266:272-291.
Johnston, R. J. and J. D. Sidaway., 2004. Geography & Geographers: Anglo-American human
geography since 1945. 6th
ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnston.P., Santillo.D., Stringer.R., 1999. Greenpeace. Ocean Disposal/Sequestration of Carbon
Dioxide from Fossil Fuel Production and Use: An Overview of Rationale, Techniques and Implications.
[Available at] http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF02987340 [Accessed]
23rd
July 2012.
Kendall.G., 2007. What Is Critical Discourse Analysis? Ruth Wodak in Conversation with Gavin
Kendall. Forum Qualitative Social Research Volume 8, No. 2, Art. 29 – May 2007: :3-5). [Accessed]
28th
August, 2012. [Available at] https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=what+is+critical+discourse+analysis+ruth+wodak&oq=What+Is+Critical+Discourse+Analysis%3F&gs_l=hp.1.3.0l2j0i30l2.1046.1046.0.5273.1.1.0.0.0.0.312.312.3-1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.BHFenY30vfc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.d2k&fp=c409455af118ddbd&biw=983&bih=499
Kerrison, P. A., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Suggett D. J., Hepburn, L. J., Steinke, M., 2011. Assessment of pH
variability at a coastal CO2 vent for ocean acidification studies, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
(2011). [Press article] pp1-9. Available at: http://medsea-project.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2011/05/Kerrison-et-al.-Estuarine-Coastal-Shelf-Science-20111.pdf. [Accessed 9th
August 2012]
Kirchner.W.J,.1989. The Gaia Hypothesis: Can it be tested? Energy and Resources Group, University
of California. Reviews of Geophysics [online] pp223-235. Available at:
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~kirchner/reprints/1989_7_Gaia_can_it_be_tested.pdf. [Accessed 12th
August 2012]
99 | P a g e
Kruger.T.,2011. Cross-Government Briefing on Geoengineering. LWEC Geoengineering Meeting.
Oxford Geoengineering Programme. Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford. Available at:
http://www.lwec.org.uk/sites/default/files/Geoengineering%20meeting_Tim%20Krug
er.pdf
Laffoley, D. d’A., and Baxter, J.M. (eds). 2011. Ocean Acidification: Acting on Evidence. Messages for
Rio+20. European Project on Ocean Acidification (EPOCA), UK Ocean Acidification Research
Programme, (UKOA), Biological Impacts of Ocean Acidification (BIOACID) and Mediterranean Sea
Acidification in a Changing Climate (MedSeA). 8pp. [Available at] www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/
Outreach/RUG. [Accessed] 28th
August, 2012
Laffoley, D. d’A., and Baxter, J.M. (eds). 2012. Ocean Acidification: The knowledge base 2012.
Updating what we know about ocean acidification and key global challenges. European Project on
Ocean Acidification (EPOCA), UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme, (UKOA), Biological
Impacts of Ocean Acidification (BIOACID) and Mediterranean Sea Acidification in a Changing Climate
(MedSeA). 8pp. [online] http://medsea-project.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2011/08/OA.2012.English.web2_.pdf. [Accessed] 28th
August, 2012
Laffoley, D. d’A., and Baxter, J.M.. 2010. Ocean Acidification Reference User Group Ocean
Acidification: Questions Answered. European Project on Ocean Acidification (EPOCA). 24 pp. [online]
http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/Outreach/RUG/. [Accessed] 28th
August, 2012
Lardner.S., 2010. The Pteropod Song. [online]
Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0ODOa-u9Y. [Accessed 19th
May 2012]
Large Hadron Collider closer to discovering God particle., No author [CERN Press Office]., 2011.
[jpeg image online]. Image 2 of 2. Available at:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1600&bih=704&tbm=isch&tbnid
=6PfEfWssnJ_aOM:&imgrefurl=http://wordlesstech.com/2011/04/29/large-hadron-
collider-closer-to-discovering-god-
particle/&docid=xrcf1R8PrcZqqM&imgurl=http://images.wordlesstech.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/large-hadron-collider-closer-to-discovering-god-
particle.jpg&w=750&h=422&ei=BgDsUJe5FIbOhAeOkoHQBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=5
75&vpy=124&dur=3697&hovh=168&hovw=299&tx=127&ty=65&sig=1132746557391
17398268&page=2&tbnh=134&tbnw=251&start=32&ndsp=37&ved=1t:429,r:43,s:0,i:2
33. Accessed: 1st
September, 2012.
100 | P a g e
Lenton.T.M., 2011. Early warning of climate tipping points. Nature Climate Change Review.
doi:10.1038/nclimate1143. [e-journal] 201–209. [Online]:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n4/full/nclimate1143.html. [Accessed
15th
June 2012]
Lenton.T.M., Livina.V.N., Dakos. V., van Nes.E.H., Scheffer.M., 2012. Early warning of climate tipping points
from critical slowing down: comparing methods to improve robustness. [e-journal] Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society. Published 30 January 2012 doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0304 Phil. Trans.
R. Soc. A 13 March 2012 vol. 370 no. 1962 1185-1204. [Online]
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1962/1185.short [Accessed 20th
July
2012].
Lynas.M., 2011. Debate with Matt Ridley on ocean acidification
[Online] http://www.marklynas.org/2011/07/debate-with-matt-ridley-on-ocean-
acidification/ [Accessed] 2nd
September, 2012.
Lynas.M., 2011. The God Species: How Humans Really Can Save the Planet...: How the Planet Can
Survive the Age of Humans [Book]. Publisher: Harper Collins. Published: Hammersmith, London. UK.
Pp205.
Lynas.M., 2008. Six degrees: Our future on a hotter planet. (2nd
edition). [Book]. Publisher: Harper
Collins. Published: Hammersmith, London. UK. Pp203-204.
McNagten, 2011. [Online digital lecture recording]. New Storylines for Living with Environmental
Change: Citizens' Perspective. [Available at]
http://www.dur.ac.uk/ias/livingwithenvironmentalchange [Accessed 31 July 2012]
Newell.,P and Paterson.,M 2010. Climate Capitalism. Global Warming and the Transformation of
the Global Economy. 2010.1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 3: Climate for
business from threat to opportunity. p39
No author.,2007. Parliamentary Office Science and Technology (POST). Postnote. No 327. Geo-
engineering Research. [Available at] http://www.parliament.uk/post [Accessed] 12th
July
2012.
Pfeiffer, D., 2003. Eating Fossil Fuels. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Fischer. F.,
Published 2006., Pp33-41
101 | P a g e
Prince of Monaco, 2010. Monaco Declaration. European Project on Ocean Acidification
(EPOCA). Making it clear. [online] http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/what-do-we-
do/outreach/rug/oa-questions-answered.html [Accessed] 28th
August, 2012
Ridgwell.A, Schmidt.D., 2010
. Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive
carbon dioxide release. Nature Geoscience 3, 196 - 200 (2010). Published online: 14 February
2010. doi:10.1038/ngeo755. [PDF]. [Accessed] 3rd September, 2012. [Online]
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo755.html
Ridgwell. A., Zeebe. R., 2005. The role of the global carbonate cycle in the regulation and evolution
of the Earth system. Available at:
http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/e114/publications/manuscript_ridgwell_and_zeebe.pdf [Accessed
15th
August 2012]
Roberson. J and Dropkin.L., 2012. Ocean Acidification: Findings from Opinion Research in the U.S.
Presentation to the Washington OA Blue Ribbon Panel. [Online]
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water/marine/oa/20120523_publicopinion_presentation.pdf
[Accessed] 2nd
June 2012
Royal Society.,2009. Geo-engineering the climate. Governance and uncertainty.
Published by Excellence in Science. September 2009. ISBN: 978-0-85403-773-5 [Available at]
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/869
3.pdf [Accessed] 2nd
September, 2012.
Russill.C., and Nyssa.Z., 2009. The tipping point trend in climate change communication. Global
Environmental Change 19 (2009) 336–344. Published by Elsevier. [Online]
www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha [Accessed] July 2012
Ryan, A.B., n.d. Post-Positivist Approaches to Research. [Available at]
http://eprints.nuim.ie/874/1/post-positivist_approaches_to_research.pdf. [Accessed 10th
August 2012]
Schratz.M., Walker.R., 1995. Research as Social Change: New Opportunities for Qualitative Research
[Paperback]
102 | P a g e
Sharp, L., and Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and
environmental policy research‟, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 3, 193-209. [Available
at] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jepp.88. [Accessed] 30th
July 2012.
Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, 2007. Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Chapter 8.7 Mechanisms
Producing Thresholds and Abrupt Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [Accessed] 25th
July 2012. [Online]
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-7.html
Spence. A., and Pidgeon.N.,2010. Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of
distance and outcome frame manipulations.
Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 656–667. Published by Elsevier. [Available at]
www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha. [Accessed July 2012]
Schuster, U., and A. J. Watson., 2007. A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the
North Atlantic. Journal of Geophysical Research. Available at: doi:10.1029/2006JC003941.
[Accessed] 9th
August 2012]
Stern.N., 2007. The Stern Review. The Economics of Climate Change. [PDF]
[Online] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm [Accessed] 12 June 2012.
Szersynski, B., 2010. Reading and Writing the Weather: Climate Technics and the Moment of
Responsibility. Theory Culture & Society. doi:10.1177/0263276409361915. [e-journal] Vol 27, (issue
9). pp 9-24. Available at: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/27/2-3/9
www.mccip.org.uk/elr/acidification [Accessed] 15th
June 2012]
Turley.C.,2011. Marine Matters. MedSeA MRUG kick off meeting. Barcelona. 22nd
-24th
February.
Past Experiences and Lessons Learned. Plymouth Marine Lab. [online] http://medsea-
project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MedSea-MRUG-Past-experiences_Turley.pdf.
[Accessed] 3rd
September, 2012. [Available at] http://medsea-project.eu/. [Accessed] 3rd
September, 2012
103 | P a g e
Turley, C. Bakker, D. Clarke, A. Nightingale, P. Pinnegar, J. Riebesell, U. Schmidt, D Tyrrell, T.
Beadman, H.. Bond, Z. Campbell D and Thorpe J., No date. The UK Ocean Acidification Research
Programme - Implementation Plan (2009-2014) [Available at]
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/oceanacidification/events/documents/
ocean-acidification-implementation-plan.pdf. [Accessed 15th
June 2012]
Turley C and K Boot .,2011. The ocean acidification challenges facing science and society. In Ocean
acidification (eds. Gattuso J.-P. & Hansson L.) Oxford University Press, Oxford. Chapter 13, Pp259-
260.
Turley, C., Findlay, HS., Mangi, S., Ridgwell, A., and Schimdt, D.N., 2009. CO2 and ocean acidification
in Marine Climate Change Ecosystem Linkages Report Card 2009. Eds. Baxter JM, Buckley PJ and
Frost MT, Online science reviews 25pp, [e-journal] Available at: www.mccip.org.uk/elr/acidification
[Accessed 9th
August, 2012.]
Turley. C., Gattuso. J-P., 2012. Future biological and ecosystem impacts of ocean acidification and
their socioeconomic-policy implications. Current Opinon in Environmental Sustainability Volume 4
(Issue 3). [e-journal] pp278-286. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.05.007.
[Accessed 17th
August 2012]
Turley.C., Keizer.T., Williamson.P-G., 2011. Hot, Sour and Breathless. How is the world’s biggest
ecosystem faring? PLM. [PDF] Available at:
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/ocean_under_stress_low_res.pdf. [Accessed 12th
August
2012]
Tyrell, T.,2007. Calcium carbonate cycling in future oceans and its influence on future Climates.
Journal of Plankton Research. doi:10.1093/plankt/fbm105. [e-journal] Vol 30. (Issue 2). Pp141-156.
Available at: http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/141.short. [Sent from author 20th
June,
2012.]
104 | P a g e
UNFCCC, n.d. Meeting report, Annex 13. Recommendation on CO2 capture and storage as CDM
project activities based on the review of cases NM0167, NM0168 and SSC_038. Pp2-11. [Available
at] http://cdm.unfccc.int/EB/026/eb26_repan13.pdf
[Accessed 12th
August 2012]
Urry.J.,2010a. Sociology Facing Climate Change. [Sociological Research Online, 15 (3) 1] [WWW]
Lancaster University. Received: 13 Jul 2010 Accepted: 19 July 2010 Published: 31 Aug 2010
[Available at] http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/3/1.html [Accessed] 29th
June 2012.
Urry.J.. 2010b. Consuming the Planet to Excess. Theory Culture Society. DOI:
10.1177/0263276409355999. Pp27:191. [Online] http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/27/2-
3/191 [Accessed] 24th
June, 2012
Uury.J.,2011c. [Online digital lecture recording]. New Storylines for Living with Environmental
Change: Citizens' Perspective. Available at:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/ias/livingwithenvironmentalchange/. [Accessed 31 July 2012]
Williamson and Turley, 2012. Ocean acidification in a geo-engineering context. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society. Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. [Available at]
http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/pdf/Phil.%20Trans.%20R.%20Soc.%20A-2012-
Williamson-4317-42.pdf [Accessed] 12th
August, 2012
Watson.A.J., Metzl.N., Schuster.U., 2011. Monitoring and interpreting the ocean uptake of
atmospheric CO 2. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences. [database] [e-journal] doi:10.1098/rsta. Vol 369. pp1997-2008. Available at:
rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org. [Accessed 9th
August 2012]
Wittmer, H. and Birner, R. (2005) Between Conservationism, Eco-populism and developmentalism –
Discourses in biodiversity in Thailand and Indonesia. CAPRi Working Paper No. 37. Washington:
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Yusoff. K.,2011a [Online digital lecture recording]. New Storylines for Living with Environmental
Change: Citizens' Perspective. [Available at]
http://www.dur.ac.uk/ias/livingwithenvironmentalchange. [Accessed 31 July 2012]
105 | P a g e
Yusoff. K., 2012. Aesthetics of loss: biodiversity, banal violence and biotic subjects. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers. Article first published online: 6 DEC 2011. Volume 37, Issue 4,
pages 578–592, October 2012. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00486.x Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers © 2011 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British
Geographers). [Available at] [PDF] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-
5661.2011.00486.x/abstract;jsessionid=FD54D321C703B7A701B5FC2BDB30F70E.d01t03?deniedAcc
essCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false [Accessed] 25th
August 2012
Zalasiewicz.J and Williams.M.,2011. The Anthroprocene: a new epoch of geological time? doi:
10.1098/rsta.2010.0339 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. vol. 369 no. 1938 835-841. [Available at]
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1938/835.full. [Accessed] 24th
June, 2012
106 | P a g e
Appendices
Appendix 1
Coded mappings examples reflecting value cognitions of Marine Scientists
Below figures 1 and 2, demonstrates example coded mappings from primary interview recordings
for Marine Scientists A and D. Themes from the interviews drive the high and lower level codes used
in deconstruction and sequencing themes that reflect corresponding individual beliefs, concerns and
recommended remedies for ocean acidification.
Once this is achieved, data dictionaries found in Appendix 3 highlight value cognitions and respective
meanings for each Marine Scientist which are then used to reconstruct individual storylines and
underlying belief systems. (Example outlined for Marine Scientist A, in Chapter 5, Data Coding).
Once storylines are reconstructed, they are compared and analysed with other Marine Scientist
participants in this study to gauge how their individual storylines may contribute to overarching
policy discussions in finding a pathway cure. Assessment of existing storylines used in climate
change discourses and newer narratives for ocean acidification are compared to assess where new
storylines may disrupt the current climate change trajectory as a result of discursive interplay
between Marine Scientists in policymaking. Results of reconstructions and further discussion can be
found in Chapter 6.
107 | P a g e
Marine scientist A; coded mappings from interview meeting reflects
individual cognitions, values and belief systems.
Figure 1; codes generated and mapped to Marine Scientist A interview transcript
108 | P a g e
109 | P a g e
110 | P a g e
Marine scientist D; coded mappings from interview meeting reflects
individual cognitions, values and belief systems.
Figure 2: codes generated and mapped to Marine Scientist D interview transcript
On the agenda/ Favoured pathway - ALTNARRA Alt narratives
CONSERV/ BIODIVERS - Conservation practices - Marine Health - Blue Carbon (BEHAVCNG)
- KNOWDIS (Coalitions Consensus)
- Synthesising policy messaging/ science
coordination, frmloss - Science w/ confidence levels GOVNCE (Coalitions Consensus) - science/ COPROD CLIMCHAG (Coalitions Consensus) - 2 degree boundary CCMODEL OAMODEL
111 | P a g e
Appendix 2
Interview transcript, Marine Scientist F
Interview, 1 hour, 15 minutes
Interviewer: In terms of the RUG, what are the objectives? Are they driven by government or the
scientific community?
Participant: It’s not so much the objectives, it’s more the solutions that are put forward by the
scientific community. Greenpeace doesn’t apply its logo to RUG but we do provide scientific input.
Ocean Acidification is not an in solvable problem. Knowdis
Interviewer: Why is that?
Participant: It’s just that we are cautious in the way in which the organisation is used in order to
portray consensus where perhaps there are still differences in opinion. I think that’s why there is
that uncertainty which is why when a document comes out it doesn’t always carry our Greenpeace
logo.
Interviewer: Differences in opinion with whom?
Participant: Across the scientific community and as well as within our organisation.
KNOWDIS
It’s a minor issue really and doesn’t reflect any disagreement with the thrust of what’s being done
and certainly doesn’t reflect any disagreement with the objectives of the RUG programme, which is
essentially to share information at every stage to look at ways at communicating that information
and build that engagement in research and have the opportunity in guiding that research agenda. I
think that is really valuable in the way in which the RUG has worked and careful message
management to try and prevent refutation against the science. So, there’s no disagreement with
the RUG objectives and the fact that the objectives have been set through the RUG process itself and
set by the scientific members of the RUG means that the messages are actually far stronger than
they would be if they were coming from government.
CPNARRA
THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH INFLUENCE RUG WIELDS? THINK ABOU THE RUG MEMBERS. THEIR
COALTIONS. WHAT NARRATIVES ARE ENERGISED AND SUSTAINED
ENERGISE – > CO2 EMISSIONS CUT NARRATIVE
There is always a greater need to cut the emissions of CO2 is something that we have agreed
wholeheartedly. It might be that 50% by 2050 is not going to be enough and quite likely it isn’t going
to be enough. But to have something that is coming from a very specific scientific background and
recognising that the only way to address that scientific problem is to take action is through cutting
emissions, I think is hugely powerful coming from that scientific community. So, I think it’s definitely
something that we would support from a scientific point of view. We would just argue that cuts
need to be deeper than 50% by 2050. COURSE OF ACTION STORYLINE – DEEPER CO2 CUTS.
112 | P a g e
Interviewer: There are a number of organisations looking at Ocean Acidification throughout the
UK and Europe some of which I believe you have been involved in. UKOA and RUG are two that I
can think of. There are others such as EPOCA, MedSea, BioAcid. What is the UK government and
their related organisations such as Defra and DECC, what is their role regarding these
programmes?
Defra is partly funding UKOA and I am not sure to what extent it was funding EPOCA. EPOCA has
finished now of course, but would have been funded in the UK through research councils. That
would have been the government interest going on there. BIOACID is a German initiative, so I don’t
know. MedSea has evolved funding at the European level, so precisely beyond the UKOA initiative
and the UK government, most of the funding has been through EU framework funding which the UK
contributes to, obviously.
Interviewer, Yes, I believe an organisation that funds EPOCA is F7 isn’t it? –though I am not sure
how MedSea is funded.
Yeah, I’m not sure how that’s funded to be honest. I think MedSea came about because there is
very little known about the Mediterranean and its responses and that it’s quite a different political
forum to operate in, in terms of getting commitment, either by research actions or actions to cut
emissions. So, I think it’s a very useful part of the programme, but I’m not sure it was initially
planned in. I think it’s kind of evolved, rather than something that was seen as a priority some years
ago and has therefore led to framework funding.
Interviewer: So, it’s led by scientists from the European Southern countries then?
Participant: Yes, along with the European commission. It’s developed as a necessary addition I
think.
Scientific practices/ climate change/ established ways of working
Evidence (narrative)/ credibility
Interviewer: If we look back to climate change briefly, my understanding is that the decision
making structure for the climate change problem started in a similar way with scientists coming
together, looking at the evidence, carrying out the research and then assessing the impacts. Then
once the evidence was established it moved onto the policy agenda. How far are we with the
process of ocean acidification? It sounds like the ocean acidification is not yet being addressed at
the policy level? Perhaps you could talk about how ocean acidification is going to get onto the
policy agenda.
INACT
Participant: I suppose climate change became a policy issue early on, as some people saw it as
needing policy action and there was a lot of disagreement and I think it took a lot of repeated
reports from the IPCC to get it onto the policy agenda and to begin to get that buy-in to get people
to talk about emissions reductions. I mean it was a very long process and even still there is huge
polarity between people who deny it and people who accept it, but feel it’s too late to do anything.
113 | P a g e
It was a long time getting a general consensus within policy that something needed to happen for
climate change.
OACHGNPOV
For ocean acidification, it’s been a much quicker process. I would say in the last 7 or 8 years, it’s
really come onto the policy agenda and its referred to quite frequently alongside climate change and
in fact if you look at “the world we want” through Rio, the paragraph that deals with Ocean
Acidification and Climate Change requiring further action actually puts Ocean Acidification first. I
don’t think that implies that it’s more important that Climate Change, but it’s kind of interesting that
transition has happened.
Interviewer: Yes, it is interesting. If you take for example, some of the content relating to ocean
acidification that I have been reading, I’ve noticed that ocean acidification is often contextualised
within Climate Change documents and often almost as just a footnote to the overall climate
change problem. But more recent documentation shows that ocean acidification texts are starting
to move away from climate change. But, I’ll certainly take a look at ‘the world we want’ paper
that you have just mentioned. OACHGNPOV
Participant: Yes, that’s one of several that make specific reference to address CO2 emissions as a
consequence of Ocean Acidification.
So, which policy makers are becoming involved in this? And to what extent are they getting
involved? Are they at the level of discussing what action can be taken to address the issue? If so,
are they talking in terms of mitigation or adaptation?
+ CLIMCHAG
Well, that’s an interesting question and there is not one overarching colleague like at this stage, like
there is in Climate Change who will currently take this on. Ocean acidification is currently being
considered as part of the fifth assessment report from the IPCC, so it’s possible I suppose that the
UNFCCC will take on some kind of mandate. It’s true to say that the solutions for ocean acidification
are the same as solutions for climate change. CPOCCOP
So, you don’t need separate political processes in order to push forward change, you just need
greater urgency within the existing systems. POLSYS
OACHPOV+ALTNARRA (COALITIONS)
But because it’s a marine issue, that’s why the UN makes specific reference to it within its oceans
sections, that’s why the Convention on Biological Diversity is interested in Ocean Acidification, that’s
why the London Protocol for the prevention of marine pollution is interested in Ocean Acidification
and there would be provisions under the United Nations Law of the Sea that would also apply
retrospectively, even though it was written at a time when it wasn’t even envisaged to protect the
marine environment from Ocean Acidification. So, I think it’s quite a broad set of policy
opportunities that exist at the international level. POLSYS Whether there is a still a requirement for
the UNFCCC to take action, I think is still unclear. I think that part of the rationale of the work
carried out within RUG and EPOCA has been focussed on trying to get the message across. In effect,
114 | P a g e
it doesn’t matter in the end whether the decision needs to be taken it just needs to be taken.
KNOWDIS
It’s not been directed at any one forum in fact Marine Scientist E (anon), has been doing the rounds
just about everywhere to ensure that all the opportunities are taken.
Are you seeing any efforts or sense of urgency from policy makers, especially in light of the Ocean
Acidification problem for UK and EU countries to ensure that individual countries remain on track
in terms of reducing emissions or to reduce their emissions plans? I know that some countries, I
think Sweden as an Annex 1 country is an example where they have committed to strong emission
reduction targets and are on track to achieving them. Other countries in the EU have been less
successful to date.
There is a greater sense of urgency. I don’t think that has yet been translated into greater urgency
and action. That is always the hope of course, if you need additional reasons to cut CO2 emissions,
then Ocean Acidification is always a reason. But, whether the additional weight that it provides is
sufficient to bring about better actions to control the cuts, remains to be seen as to how individual
countries take a view on that. It governs national actions that they take, but it also governs what
positions they take in international negotiations and there is always that problem that whatever
seems a very good idea to protect society, wildlife, natural systems ten, twenty, thirty years hence, is
ultimately balanced off against political objectives over periods of two to three years. So, what is
deeply frustrating is that actions to protect the environment that carry a huge cost benefit for the
future seem to fall at the first hurdle when it comes to times of recession. It seems that you can’t
have it both ways, well, you either pull us out of growth or recession or you have environmental
legislation. I think some of this is behind current legislation on cutting subsidies in wind in the UK
and how deeply you cut them for example. You know, when you get from the principle of things,
the detail of policy and how it’s implemented, you can get all kinds of conflicts, and of course the
trouble is it is argued in both ways. Basically during recession or slow growth you can’t expect green
measures to take president. But if you were to accept that, naturally when you are looking at
sustainability is when you are achieving growth and growth is continue to increase emissions. So, it’s
almost like, you can’t have it then and you can’t have it now. So, there really does need to be a real
change of political thinking if we are going to achieve things in the way we need to. I think Ocean
Acidification in particular has a role to play in policy making, is it’s not simply the weight it adds, but
it’s the timing of it that I think is critical, because Climate Change is still something that’s considered
to be something of the future, until very recently. Something that is likely rather than certain.
That’s changing I think in particular, this year the debate is all about whether the weather events we
are seeing now are related to climate change. I don’t know whether you have noticed, but there is a
lot more reporting even in the US of the fact that all the weather we have now has an underlying
trend of Climate Change.
Interviewer: I have seen some articles that allude to that, yes.
Participant: Yeah, but the message until very recently has been that we don’t know this storm event
is a result of Climate Change but it’s possible in a Climate Change world and it’s been possible for
people to say, “well I’ll not worry about it, because it’s something that might happen in the future.”
But now there’s the message coming out of the IPCC’s report on ‘extreme weather events’ is that
you can’t say that anyone storm would not have happened, but it’s likelihood and severity has an
115 | P a g e
underlying pressure from Climate Change. So, in fact, every event you see has some pressure from
Climate Change that makes it more likely to have happened. And, it’s quite a subtle change in
messaging, but it;s quite an important one, because it’s not something that’s saying is not going to
happen in the future, it says it’s happening now.
With Ocean Acidification, you’ve got something that is much more empirical from the outset. You
can measure the change in Ocean pH and its changing very rapidly against geological time. You
know precisely the mechanism by which that’s happening, because CO2 is an acid gas. You know,
put acid gas into seawater and what you don’t have such certainty on, just as in the case of Climate
Change is the scale and nature of the impacts of ecosystems. But, in terms of the fact that we are
not talking about something that could not get worse in 10 years’ time, it’s actually happening now.
So, I suppose what I am saying is that it adds weight to the Climate Change argument and also
provides additional urgency to the need for actions which I think is now being appreciated.
Interviewer: I know you mentioned that there are uncertainties in understanding the impacts to
biological organisms of Ocean Acidification. I have read articles about reduced quality and fitness
in some calcifying organisms, as well as other non-calcifying species such as starfish. If organisms
are already being impacted, should we report that these responses are actually happening now to
them? If so, then, is this an argument that perhaps we can use to as a lever to getting a policy
response earlier rather than later?
Participant: I think there is already evidence, that there are biological effects. Whether the effects
are at the population level, you are actually seeing the beginnings of change to the viability of
certain species I think that is still an open question. I think it’s become clearer that Ocean
Acidification can have a much wider effect on organisms that has previously been thought. A lot of
focus has been on calcifying organisms, but a lot of work recently has focussed on other
physiological sects, even for organisms that are not shell forming. Sediment dwelling organisms that
depend on certain redox and certain pH’s and which acidification may not have a lethal effect in the
short term but can nonetheless reduce fitness by changing behaviour or reducing feeding efficiency,
reducing reproductive success. You know, all those sorts of things can have an impact on
survivability of the organisms.
Interviewer: Yes, one of the articles I had read referred to the fact that there had been no changes
in the normal appearance of some starfish, but internal physical and chemical composition had
been impacted by acidification.
Participant: Yes, some of it can be quite subtle in its manifestation if you like. So, if you imagine that
an organism is able to survive in a reduced pH, but its having to put more of its energy budget into
maintaining a normal pH, then basically, even that barrier. ..I mean, some organisms have physical
barriers that let chemicals through and for something like hydrogen ions exchange it’s very rapid
that you need an active system inside the cells to maintain the pH that you need in order for your
cellular function to happen. Now, if that gradient becomes greater inside and outside, then you
need to put more energy in to maintain it. Now that energy, has got to come from somewhere, so it
means that it’s not being directed to other physiological processes. It maybe growth, or repair, or
reproduction, movement, behaviour, all those types of things and it would be easy to say well, it
isn’t killing the organism so why care. But, it’s a little bit I suppose to IQ within human populations,
so if you get something that impacts on IQ, maybe one or two points, you could say, “oh well, what
116 | P a g e
difference does that make?” But, averaged out over a whole population, that’s really significant and
that can make the difference to the way in which a society evolves, depending on how that
distribution looks, because you’ve always got tails at either end. And it’s the same with regulation of
biological functions, where you’re increasing the stress and placing a greater proportion of the
population under sub-ideal conditions and although most individuals may survive, they may survive
in a way which the long term viability of the species is undermined, or that they survive in a way that
have impacts on other parts of the food web that rely on them, in terms of the quality of the food
that they are then providing for their predators could change.
Interviewer: I have read about societal impacts that have been occurring within the shell fish
industry in the US. Where shells are becoming pitted, thinner and they are become reduced in
size. Do you know if this issue is resonating with policy makers and those in industry?
There are isolated circumstances where there are direct impacts to society and certainly the US shell
fisheries. I have heard that this is becoming a talking point but I am not fully familiar with who is
engaged here. From a physical and chemical viewpoint, where you have these localised zones and
upwelling of lower pH water, where I think we are starting to see real measurable effects in the field,
I think in a lot of cases we are trying to understand what it is that we should be looking for. We still
know so little for example, about the ecology of pteropods, these rather beautiful shell swimming
snails. We know that they are sensitive to pH reduction. We know they are sensitive to all kinds of
other things as well. And they are incredibly difficult to study, because they don’t like being
enclosed in any kind of system. We assisted in a major experiment back in 2010, I don’t know if you
know, but Greenpeace sent a ship up to the Artic.
Interviewer: Is this where you worked closely with PML in the Artic?
Participant: Yeah, that’s exactly right. The scientists up there were using huge mescosms, huge
tubes that go into the water and the hope was that the scale of those was that the pteropds would
see it as open sea and we would get a much greater representivity of their responses and in fact they
all just gathered at the bottom. They don’t always swim vertically; they were encountering the side
of the mescosms, assuming that was the surface and then going down again, so in a series of
incremental steps, they were all just accumulating at the bottom, so even in that kind of situation
when you are enclosing them in the sea, they don’t seem to respond in the same way that they
would in their own environment. So, it’s very hard to know over time, how they have responded
already, what significance the changes have been, the pitting of the shells, those kinds of things in
relation to their physiology, their ecology and the impacts they have on the rest of the food web. I
think in the end, it’s just like any other situation, where you’re looking for sentinel changes. You’re
looking for mechanisms, rather than for things to happen, you are looking for fundamental things in
biology and responses to stress. Backup to what Kathryn Yusoff says about species on the REDD list
and protectionism. Need to quote Santillo here: If you wait until you’re absolutely convinced that
the population is on a nose dive in the environment, then you’ve waited too long. So, you have to
respond to those early warning signs and I suppose the best early warnings that we have, related to
areas where you do have naturally high CO2 concentrations and in those situations you can see
markedly different species assemblages, depending on pH.
117 | P a g e
Interviewer: Are these the widely documented naturally occurring CO2 vents as a result of
volcanic activity close to the seabed, sometimes known as Jacuzzi vents?
Participant: Yeah, these are the CO2 vents, where you can see small changes but large differences in
the species composition and that’s in a situation where you’ve had perhaps millions of years of
adaptation and you’ve got that adaptation but you’ve got adaptation that is very much along that
gradient and not all species by any means would survive in the lower pH water. So, if we are getting
such a wider change now on a broader scale without the time for adaptation, then who knows what
the consequences are going to be. But it’s not something that I think we want to find out.
Interviewer: From what I have read, there seems to be much emphasis on current and future
scientific research, through for example the UKOA and EPOCA programmes, which I understand is
designed to inform policy makers and make recommendations with regards to action. However, I
was wondering whether perhaps the international laws that you mentioned earlier could address
Ocean Acidification. Whether they would be sufficient to address the problem or whether they
would perhaps need to be extended in some way to become fit for purpose.
Participant: Yes, I think the laws are not yet specific to Ocean Acidification and I don’t think there
has yet been a challenge that could be used in order to enforce greater action in dealing with
pollution at source. A lot of these conventions, lets’ take quite a specific one if you like, the; ‘London
Convention’, which is being replaced by the ‘London Protocol’ which is just a more pre-cautionary
version of the ‘London Convention’. That was setup in the early 70’s in order to try and prevent
pollution from dumping of waste at sea and was setup largely as a permitting mechanism, so if you
wanted to dump industrial or radioactive waste at sea, then we had a mechanism whereby you can
get permits. Over the 20 or so years, subsequent to the 1972 when we went green, you had a step
change in the 90’s to something that was much more about protecting the marine environment, not
necessarily permitting waste disposal. At that point, industrial and radioactive waste dumping was
banned, incineration at sea was banned, but even from the very beginning when it was seen as a
permissive regime, there were clauses in there that said that parties have an obligation to protect
the marine environment from all sorts of pollution. So, in theory, cases could have been brought to
court. It doesn’t matter if this is being dumped from a ship or an aircraft or whatever, this is a
general obligation to deal with all sorts of pollution. Now the mechanisms for that aren’t specified,
but it’s there as an obligation within the convention and it’s exactly the same in the much broader
law of the sea convention. It’s easy to forget those general obligations because it doesn’t say “and
this obligation will be met in this way”, but they exist.
Interviewer: So, can I clarify what you are saying here? Are you saying that the general
perception is that the ‘London Convention’ and ‘UNCLOS’ covers marine protection for prevention
of pollution such ocean dumping, but it could be extended to other domain areas quite simply,
perhaps through communication initiatives and modifying standards documents for example?
Participant: Yes, exactly, exactly. One thing that the ‘London Protocol’ has looked at in recent years
has been carbon capture and storage, not because it has an interest in climate change mitigation,
but because it has concerns about the potential impacts of CO2 on the marine environment. (I think
this is contrary to what Marine Scientist E (anon) was saying). So, if you put it under the sea and
then you get a release, then it’s going to have an impact, so there has been quite a relatively
cautious approach to it. It has not been a facilitative approach to allow it. One of the first time’s it
118 | P a g e
came up in policy arena was in connection with potential for releases from sub-sea reservoirs.
Marine Scientist E (anon), came to talk to the London Convention years ago to raise that as an issue.
But, in the assessment process, before deciding to commit sub-sea disposal of CO2 for CCS, there’s a
clause that says that you have to look first at whether you can avoid generating the CO2 in the first
place. The reference is then made back to Energy policies. That’s the way they’ve dealt with it, it’s
dealt with by someone else. There it’s reflected that you’ve got to think about why you would put
the stuff in the seabed in the first place and whether there are ways that you could reduce it and
again that’s the general obligation.
Interviewer: I was speaking with Marine Scientist E (anon), about CCS policy and implementation
of CCS and she mentioned that the infrastructure is already there to carry out this practice and
that the infrastructure is owned by the energy companies. Would you agree that the
infrastructure is ready to use? And do you think in light of this, there is a business interest for
energy companies to mitigate, given that there is potentially a business opportunity for them to
carry out CCS?
Participant: I think that largely the interest is in the tax breaks they would get as a result of CCS. I
think they’ve got to be careful not to think that the existing infrastructure would in any way be
suitable for the transport of CO2. Some of the pipework is ok for gas, ok for oil, but it wouldn’t be
suitable for something as corrosive as CO2. Some of it would be, undoubtedly, but it’s telling I
suppose that BP was going to invest in CCS at a time when it looked like it was going to get money
from government in order to do that. As soon as that fell apart, they said “we’re not going to do
that anymore, it’s not worth it.” So, there’s a big financial element needed in order to do it and I
think that would always trump any environmental conscience that they would have. If they had an
environmental conscience, then they wouldn’t be extracting oil in the first place. I don’t know the
way in which that’s going to go, but we have seen Ocean Acidification being used as another
justification for pushing ahead with CCS, because the argument being, that it’s better if it goes into
the seabed than in the sea, which is what is going to happen if it’s going into the air. But, we always
say “it’s better if you don’t produce it in the first place and it’s better if you can avoid it.” I don’t
know what the future is for CCS. I think there is a lot of hype about it. I don’t think its developed to
anything like the extent or at the rate that it was supposed to be developing and that’s largely
because its so expensive. The exploration phase, the capture of CO2, the infrastructure that you
would need to either put in place or to modify, the distances in which you have to transport it, the
monitoring you need to have in place that still hasn’t been defined.
Interviewer: Do you think we are a long way off from CCS then? If you look at both the ‘DECC’
and ‘Committee on Climate Change’ websites, there’s a lot on there about CCS and so it appears
to be very much on the UK agenda and I have also noticed it’s on the EU agenda too.
Participant: Oh yes, it’s on a lot of agendas and in fact it may get another push, because the UNFCCC
under its clean development mechanism is trying to finalise rules on CCS as a potential CDM issue, so
if you were looking at developing CCS in a non OECD country, then there would be money available
to do that. So, I think that could be a big push unfortunately.
Interviewer: Do you think from your own personal perspective it could have an impact on
geophysical changes such as Tsunami’s for example?
119 | P a g e
Participant: Yes, I think it certainly could. If it’s done in the wrong places then it easily could. And I
know it’s easy to say “we’ll just do it in the right places, but I don’t think even now, and not knowing
about geological structures other than the few that have been very well characterised, so that you
can pump these things to high pressure and it won’t have impact locally or even further a field.
We still don’t know what the risks are of displacing what’s already in the reservoirs. You know, if
you’re displacing brine, then you have a very high mineral content, perhaps very high metal content
from the reservoir, then you’re not interested in where it’s going. You could be impacting with other
acquifires around, you could be impacting with the seabed, it really becomes difficult to know. And
the structural changes to the earth’s crust that happen as a result and that becomes a particular
worry because there is an impactable agreement, again looking back at the ‘London Protocol’, an in
principle agreement to allow export of CO2 for sub seabed disposal and that export is not limited to
between parties between the protocol. So, you could have a party to the London Protocol, saying
“we’ll export it to another country because they have a big reservoir.” And it’s really unclear then
where the liabilities lie, because that other country isn’t a party, doesn’t have the obligations, maybe
doesn’t have the capacity to do any of the monitoring and in some cases, they wouldn’t really care if
they are getting the money in. So, that’s certainly a big rush to get the clean development
mechanism protocol agreed for that at a time when there seems to be so many open questions
about liability, remediation, monitoring responsibilities. Politically it’s a mess.
Interviewer: Have you heard of a concept called EU MENA?
Participant: Oh yes, I think I have.
Interviewer: It appears to be at the visionary stage from what I’ve read.
There is the idea that we could all be using Concentrated Solar Power,
generated from Africa, which would be supplied over the EU grid and into the
UK. Whilst in principle it sounds interesting, because the concept is
transnational with lots of different interest groups who own different parts
of the network infrastructure, I can see that it is fraught with barriers in
terms of a mitigation solution. Are there any ways in which you think we
could get a quicker response in mitigating CO2?
Participant: If there was a global government for the planet, then it would be possible. I think that
there is a governance problem, where there is always competition between states, competition
between companies. I’m not sure it’s something that could ever get off the ground in a big way, at
least not in the foreseeable future. We try again to look at big infrastructure solutions that would
perhaps be better solved by more local generation and distribution in power. So much energy is lost
in transmission, that it makes sense to take the opportunity of looking at different models of
creating and generating energy. So, perhaps in the future MENA might have a role to play, but I
don’t think it’s something we’ll see any time soon. If there was to be a model developed, then it
would have to be really an underlying justification. You couldn’t receive the same justification
through smaller scale ideas really, so I suppose the next stage up is setting up capture of solar rays
from the moon and sending the energy back to earth.
120 | P a g e
Interviewer: So, it sounds like to me, from what we’ve talked about today, that there are quite a
lot of barriers relating to mitigation strategies of atmospheric CO2. There are issues with CCS, in
generating renewable energy to a satisfactory timescale to keep Climate Change within the
recommended 2 degree centigrade limits and we don’t really know whether even 2 degrees is
sufficient to address the Ocean Acidification problem.
Participant: Well, what’s required is to address Ocean Acidification, which is cuts in emissions of
CO2. That’s the only thing really that will resolve it. And, in some ways, finding a more sustainable
energy solution is not that complicated is to look at energy use to begin with. One area that has
never been part of a discussion is how much could, we simply reduce the amounts of energy we are
using and wasting. I mean, we have all the lights on in here on a sunny day, it’s pretty dismal isn’t it
and this is one of the newest buildings on campus as well. It’s also the least efficient, unfortunately
because of all the open spaces.
I think energy conservation and energy efficiency have to be where we look in much more detail.
Renewable energy may be a difficult thing to envisage over a vast scale. If we stick with current
understandings of the way in which electricity is produced and generated, where you a small
number of centres for production, a huge infrastructures of National Grid to supply power, and I
think we should look decentralising that and looking at ways in which you can incentivise without
giving the initiative to companies who will basically exploit your rooftops. You can incentivise local
communities to look at generation. I mean, I’m really wary of solar panel companies who look to
take ownership of your roof for 25 years or something. People have had all kinds of problems selling
their house, as they realised that they’ve signed up and leased out their roof in line with some feed
in tariff initiatives.
So, there is an awful lot of money going to companies making a lot of money out of it and I’m not
sure it’s an amazing deal for people. It’s been de-regulated to the extent that if you can afford it
then you get a good deal and if you can’t afford it, then you put up with what you get.
It’s also the way the energy system in the UK and Europe
Obviously you need a production and distribution system and a baseload and security of supply, but
it’s not necessarily the case that a small number of big generating stations would be the best way of
providing that security of supply. You could achieve a different sort of security of supply if you had a
small number of renewable of energy supply with sufficient interactions or networking to make up
our security of supply.
Interviewer: How would that work? Would we have a main grid with community power stations
hanging off the main grid or would energy systems be architected in other ways?
Participant: Yeah, I imagine so, but I don’t know precisely. But energy travelling shorter distances
would be better for use and efficiency. We also need to find better ways of storing energy.
It’s not an overnight solution. I don’t think anyone will claim to have the answers to resolve Climate
Change or Ocean Acidification today. There is some degree of committed Climate Change anyway
and there will be some degree of adaptation. But, I think we have had for sometime, the techniques
that could already have the UK and other countries meet or exceed their obligations. What is
missing is the political will to apply them. If people see it as “obligations”, then people always go to
121 | P a g e
the limit I find. With this 2 degree C limit, where the scientists were saying “you don’t want to go
beyond 2 degrees” and the politicians were saying “ok, so we can go as far as 2 degrees and if we go
over a bit, then we’re ok”, because we’ve done our best.
48.32
Interviewer: I have seen references to suggest that policymakers are using stalling tactics, so that
we don’t have to reduce our fossil fuel output so quickly. That you could encourage countries to
group together, so that high emitters would collaborate with low emitters. By doing so, high
emitters could seek to delay mitigation action.
Participant: Yeah, it’s all kind of trade-offs isn’t it really. The whole idea of offsetting carbon
emissions is just playing with time. It’s not changing anything in our approach to energy being a
finite resource, looking at efficiency and sustainability of what we are doing. We’re saying we can
carry on doing this, as long as we pay some money into here or as long as other people don’t, but it’s
still emitting more CO2.
Interviewer: Do you think that required changes can come about, through our existing political
systems? For example in the UK and even globally, to some extent there seems to be a politics of
‘evolution’ where we respond to problems in a linear events driven way.
Do you think that this way of thinking is sufficient to drive the changes that are required to invoke
effective CO2 mitigation strategies or do we need to think about how to change our mind-set in
general?
Participant: I think it is possible, within existing political systems, because those political systems
have at the face of it, been largely the same for hundreds of years in some cases and yet there has
been a huge amount of evolution that people live. Some things have become acceptable,
sometimes unacceptable. Sometimes it takes a huge amount of time, but that sort of change is
possible. Sometimes it can be quite abrupt. It doesn’t need to be an evolution over 20 odd years or
so. And I think, yes it is possible. The current political system makes it so difficult, because it’s so
event driven and short term in its thinking. Because there is such a political risk in thinking about
future generations, you know, there aren’t many politicians that are prepared to do it in any
country. If we were to have a different political system, that would… some people say its more
about democracy to get the right sort of change. Although, I am a democrat, I am not sure that is
always the case. I’m not sure that democracy takes you in necessarily the most stable direction,
because democratic opinion can be influenced by all kinds of things as well and generally doesn’t
look at the longer term. Democracy generally looks quite short term, so democracy on its own is a
sufficient, not a necessary condition. I think it needs in addition a greater ability for political leaders
to be visionary, maybe to see the political risks, but in the greater good. And it also needs ultimately
for us to find an alternative prosperity to financial growth. That I think at least in the latter part,
which people are starting to struggle with. They are talking about happiness indexes and indexes of
well-being as measures of a country’s success, but then it’s quite depressing when you hear that, the
only way anything positive is going to happen is by achieving more growth. That means using more
stuff, more resources and there doesn’t seem anyway around that. Growth is the mantra. Unless
growth could be de-coupled from material wealth and consumption, then it’s hard to see how you
can go forward.
122 | P a g e
Interviewer: Yes, I have had a look at the happiness index in the past. I think Britain is rated quite
low down on the scale even though we are seen to be one of the most economically wealthy.
Participant: I don’t think there is anyone who actually measures there well-being in terms of
happiness. Actually, there is a country somewhere that measures part of it’s GDP in terms of
happiness, but I can’t remember which one. Is it Nepal?
Interviewer: I’m not sure I’ll have to look that up.
Participant: It’s so superficial at the moment and easy to laugh off. Unless it has some greater
relevance to people’s needs that can challenge what people currently perceive as their needs, then
it’s not really going to gain anymore traction, rather than just being seen as an interesting side issue.
That’s pretty sad really, because if we’re not happy, then what are we doing on the planet.
Interviewer: So, going back to Ocean Acidification then, do you think that Ocean Acidification is
likely to play out in the same way as Climate Change? By this, I mean whether Ocean Acidification
will become more about creating scenarios to predict what things could be like under different
CO2 scenarios in the future, like the IPCC has with Climate Change for example? Some would also
perhaps say that some of IPCC’s messaging has been apocalyptic and as a result had a negative
effect on behaviour. Or, do you think there should be some changes to that process where Ocean
Acidification is concerned?
Participant: Interesting question. I don’t think to a large extent that Ocean Acidification has taken
that sort of approach to it. It has tried to remain very matter of fact, very evidence based and sure
some of the statistics are pretty scary. The one that stands out to most people is that the speed of
change at the moment is greater than over numbers of millions of years and the message is that this
is really quite unusual. But, that is just a fact it is not something that is just kind of projection. It’s
simply an observation of what’s happening. When it comes to describing the impacts, it’s also very
fact based. It’s essentially saying “we know there are mechanisms that will be impacted by this
biologically. We don’t know, precisely what the ecological impacts will be, but they could be severe.
You know, mass extinctions and eco-systems take millennia to recover under that kind of
perturbation. There may well be some species will do better under a lower pH, but that in itself
doesn’t mean that you have no impacts on the eco-system. You could have other changes as a result
of other species becoming more prominent. So, I think what’s compelling about it is the fact that
perhaps it hasn’t in any way been apocalyptic. Its saying, this is what is happening, this is what we
don’t know.
Interviewer: Do you think as we start to know more and become more confident in predicting
how ecosystems might behave under acidified conditions, we might start to look at future
scenarios, in the same way as scientists did for Climate Change? For example, for Climate Change,
scientists develop Global Circulation Models to predict what the future could be under climate
change scenarios.
Participant: There are already some projections. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that people
haven’t projected into the future, that’s happening and will continue to happen and hopefully will be
accelerated. You’re right, the full relevance I suppose that are being called for by the research group
of scientists and the reference user group more broadly is for more research and that’s almost
123 | P a g e
inevitable. It’s almost a mantra of science that you need more research, but that’s inevitably the
case. You know, so a single experiment will only tell you a certain number of things, despite all the
investment. The other things incidentally… I said there were four things being called for;
- Research being one
- Essentially reduction in emissions being a very clear statement
- A greater respect for the marine environment, saying if we want to enable the marine
environment to cope with committed Ocean Acidification, that we need to deal with other
forms of pollution, over fishing habitat destruction in order to build in that resilience.
- The forth is restoration, providing space for ecosystems to recover from previous
perturbations in order to recover, to ensure that you have that level of resistance/ resilience
there.
So, I think all of those are recognised within the type of statements that the research committee
comes out with.
Interviewer: You mentioned resilience. With regards to building resilience in the oceans, how is
this likely to come about? I have seen a map of the oceans and they look incredibly busy. There
are very busy shipping lanes that you could liken to motorways, energy platforms, fisheries to
accommodate and so on, so there almost seems to be areas that are ‘owned’ or stakeholders have
‘rights’ over the marine environment. Is there room do you think for more Marine Protection
Areas? - which I think cover about 1% of the world’s oceans.
And is there perhaps a process or a mindset change, to drive consensus that MPA’s could come
about at a cost to other stakeholders who are already using those areas for economic use?
Participant: Yes, I think that needs to be the case. It’s been relatively easy to achieve, not that easy
at all, but relatively easy to achieve a top level agreement globally that there needs to be a network
of marine reserves, marine protected areas. That it needs to be a network that is large enough,
representative enough and interconnected enough that it would provide real protection for a good
cross section of habitats and species. What that means again is that largely in practice this is being
driven from international and regional administrations.
Interviewer: Is this agreement driven largely from UNCLOS?
Participant: Yeah, well under the UN general assembly. So, there is an acceptance that is has to
happen, but there is not an understanding as to how you make it happen and what it means in
practice. And when you look at the way in which it’s being implemented in the UK, there’s still a lot
more that needs to be done. The UK is quite good at collecting local marine assessments about the
quality of its marine environment compared to other countries, but then again it tends to be top
level. It has arrows going this way and that way, red, green, amber lights, you know that kind of
thing. It’s quite difficult to get a lot of localised detail and that’s largely because the information
isn’t very good in some cases. But when it comes down to actually setting areas, they tend to be
quite small and compromised in some way so that they are not fully protected. There’s endless
negotiations… and politically it’s a very difficult process to do. And it’s partly due to the way in
which it’s been approached, not to understand from the value of it from the outset, not just in terms
124 | P a g e
of environmental protection but also setting the future for economic sustainability. I don’t think
that argument has been well raised, so every time a protected area is being closed in the UK, there
has always been a huge amount of opposition. There’s not really been perhaps also enough thinking
through of what types of activities would be allowed around it and within local and protected areas.
So, I do think there needs to be a change in mindset. We generally see the weather as being
something that we can modify, alter, steal from, cut down, whatever. We don’t see ourselves in
terms of being one species amongst many, we see ourselves as being in control in a way and if you
start from the position that humans should always take precedent over everything else, then your
locked into that and its always going to be difficult to break out from there. If you can show that
there is some intrinsic value, and not just intrinsic value to us as a species, there is intrinsic value to
the planet as a whole of having, all of these other ecosystems and processes happen even if they are
not beneficial to us. It’s a difficult mindset to break into I suppose.
Interviewer: Do you think that an issue could be that people simply don’t understand what the
environmental problems are, let alone think about what they could do to address them? The
types of messages that seem to come our way through politicians and the media seems to cover
an economic theme and encourages us to consume and go shopping, rather than take
responsibility for environmental issues by changing our behaviours.
Participant: Yeah, I agree and the guy on the street, when they see some of the messages that are
constantly reinforced night after night on the news, the biggest problems that the UK and in fact
Europe has is that people are not spending enough. We’re not going out and buying enough. And
that would solve the problems. You know, that would be very easy for people to solve the problems.
All we’ve got to do it consume more and the world would be a better place!
But, I think there is a general presumption that people won’t get scientific problems. They won’t get
uncertainty, so you have to provide them with a very cut down and simplified, always pre-
determined set of choices that often aren’t choices at all, and that public consultation is much more
about getting buy in about bringing the public round to a certain point of view, rather than it is
generally about understanding what it is that people know, what it is that they are prepared to
accept and how much members of the public would be prepared to take more radical decisions if
they realised what the consequences were of what was happening.
There is an interesting thing, if you look at more environmentally conscientious countries, the ones
that spring to mind are the Nordic countries, Denmark and Sweden etc, they tend to be seen of as
quite liberal countries in some ways and yet there is an awful lot of political direction from the top,
basically saying, “we’re not going to allow that, we’re not going to do that, we are not going to allow
those chemicals to be sold, you’re going to cut emissions, you’re not allowed to follow that process”
and you could argue that was less democratic I suppose in a way. But it isn’t, despite they’ve had
greater political direction, the populations in their countries tend to be very happy with their
politicians because their politicians are actually saying “your interest is in the interest of your
children, is in the interest of the planet and this is what we’re doing.”
So, I am not arguing that there needs to be an authoritarian approach, but we’ve gone so far in the
other direction, that you could almost say “well, you know the public don’t want it and we’ll make
sure that the public don’t want it because we’ll not give them information and then we’ll act in their
interests which is dis-interest and therefore we don’t need to do anything.” You know, it’s kind of
125 | P a g e
self-fulfilling in a way. So, it’s about trying to find a way that you can have greater bottom up
involvement in decision making, be better informed and also have the political courage and
leadership to say, it’s necessary. Actually, we’ve got to think about 20 years from now and it’s not
just about how much money we’ll have in the next budget or whatever. We’ve actually got to think
about sustainability over a much longer period.
Interviewer: Do you believe that climate change can be separated from the economy? Participant:
Climate change is the economy in a way, because it has such a bearing on it, because you can’t
separate it out, but is it the short term economy of the next month or the next budget because you
can always see things in a complete detachment from anything else.
There is a climate knowledge exchange network in Exeter led by Cox and Lenton. I don’t know if you
have heard of it. It might be worth looking into it, there is an event coming up in the autumn.
126 | P a g e
Appendix 3
Data dictionaries To reiterate, there are three data dictionaries which aids storyline reconstructions reflecting
problem and solution orientation for each Marine Scientist. This approach demonstrates individual
understandings of ocean acidification.
Data dictionaries type 1 –
Interview data is mapped into codes to reflect individual and collective concerns and preferred
solutions for participants. These are fixed causal pathways, and these codes are referred to as Level
1, independent variables. The meaning of each code remains the same throughout the
reconstruction of the narrative. Level 1 codes, have lower level hierarchical coded categories
assigned to them, which are changeable and reflect participants’ propositional orientation to
particular storylines (Refer to dictionary tables 8,9,10).
Data dictionary type 2 –
Dictionaries within type 2, reflects value cognitions and respective meanings for each Marine
Scientist resulting from interviews.
Level 2 codes are dependent variables which are contingent, in that the meaning of each code varies
with how participants understand existing problems as well as current and future solutions. By
hooking a level 2 code onto a level 1 code, emphasies a participant’s orientation towards risk or
solution. There are some cases where level 2 codes are coupled with other level 2 codes to
emphasise orientation. Uniqueness of group or individual perspective is coded further. Numbers
are used to align to the way in which a participant sees something, holds a certain perspective which
serves to construct narratives or viewpoints that are unique to each participant interviewed.
Meanings for example, signify a point of view, counter opinions signify a counter viewpoint and
usage signifies common usage, also known as Hajer’s discursive closure. (Refer to dictionary table
11).
Data dictionaries type 3 –
Level 3 codes hook onto other Level 1, 2, or 3 codes and provide further orientation about
propositions used in storyline reconstructions. Orientations can may reflect ones organisational line,
own point of view or situations of inter-discursive tension such as requirement to modify the
storyline or compromise. (Refer to dictionary table 12).
127 | P a g e
Dictionaries Type 1
Problem usage domain, conception of risk
(Dictionary of level 1 data codes and meaning)
Level 1 independent
variables (code)
Description of code Definition
CCPNARRA Climate change
problem narrative
Recognition of problem with climate change
narrative, independent of the Ocean Acidification
narrative. This identifies uncertainty with the
current framing and may lead to an altered solution
pathway.
OAUNPOV Ocean acidification
uncertain point of view
Uncertain point of view, in light of Ocean
Acidification narrative. Participant requires further
information before making a solution pathway
decision and recognises that Ocean Acidification
could act as a possible pathway disruptor.
OACHNGPOV Ocean acidification
change point of view
Ocean Acidification narrative changes conception
of risk and shifts point of view in light of new
evidence that has come about from the narrative.
Table 8: Level code 1 expresses initial value cognitions and their meanings as outcome from coded
mappings
Independent problem variables, CCPNARRA (climate change problem narrative), identifies concerns
with current framing which may lead to another solution pathway. OAUNPOV (ocean acidification
uncertain point of view) reflects uncertainty in light of Ocean Acidification narrative, where more
information is required before making a solution pathway decision. This variable has the potential
to behave as a possible pathway disruptor away from the participant’s original position to a new
solution trajectory, which would change discursive dynamics. Both these variables are analysed as
risk variables only.
OACHNGPOV (ocean acidification change point of view), demonstrates that elements within the
Ocean Acidification narrative, changes conception of risk and shifts point of view in light of new
evidence. When mapped to a level 2, dependent variable reflects a concerning problem pathway in
light of new information from the Ocean Acidification narrative.
128 | P a g e
Solution usage domain, conception appropriate course of action
Black box assumption (existing climate change pathway and UK government coalition line)
(Dictionary of level 1 data code and meaning)
Level 1 independent
variables (code)
Description of code Definition
CCPOVOP Climate change point
of view original
position
No change in hegemonic conception from original UK
government position on climate change. Therefore,
course of action remains the same for proposition,
level 2, Dependent Variable.
Table 9: Level code 1 expresses initial value cognitions and their meanings as outcome from coded
mappings
CCPOVOP (climate change point of view original position) is a conceived solution pathway, when
mapped to a dependent 2 variable reflects no change in conception from the existing hegemonic
position on climate change held by the UK government. We verify this dominant viewpoint from UK
government Defra and DECC policy documentation and available materials from their websites. We
analyse the CCPOVOP code as a black box assumption, similar to Hajer’s idea of discursive closure,
where conception of a problem is resolved and requires no further analysis similarly, black boxing
refers to propositions taken as facts, which are beyond question. (Burney 2008:2-10; Hajer, 1995:
22:45:59)
Solution usage domain, conception appropriate course of action
(Dictionary of level 1 data code and meaning)
Level 1 independent
variables (code)
Description of code Definition
OACHNGPOV Ocean acidification
change point of view
In light of new information from the ocean
acidification narrative, there is a change in
participant’s point of view and effects preferred
solution pathway.
Table 10: Level code 1 expresses initial value cognitions and their meanings as outcome from coded
mappings
OACHNGPOV (ocean acidification change point of view), reflects change in participants point of view
in light of new information from the ocean acidification narrative. When mapped to a dependent 2
variable reflects participant point of view and effects preferred solution pathway.
129 | P a g e
Dictionary Type 2
Solution or Problem usage domain, conception appropriate course of action
(Dictionary of level 2 dependent variable data codes and meanings)
Level 2 dependent
variables (code)
Description of code Descriptions and language usage for Level 2 variable
ACID
ACIDIFICATION
Refers to lowered ocean pH, caused by de-alkalising or
acidifying due to increased atmospheric CO2. pH
during mid-1800’s is said to have measured 8.2 in
comparison to present day levels of 7.9 in some
oceans, increasing ocean acidity by approximately
30%. Acidification is projected to have a devastating
effect on marine life at all levels of the biological
phylum. (Kerrison et al 2011)
Usage 1 - pH levels are directly measured and there is
general discursive closure amongst scientists that
ocean acidification is occurring.
Usage 2 – intention to use term ‘acidification’, rather
than de-alkalise as acidification resonates with
individuals and policy makers. Both terms are correct,
but express different ways of communicating the
problem.
(Marine Scientist A, Marine Scientist E, Marine
Scientist F)
ALTNARRA ALTERNATIVE
NARRATIVE
Meaning 1 - Narratives that are current and
peripheral or yet to be created. In some cases, new
discursive coalitions should be on boarded and may
be outside of policy making from other societal
domains.
(Marine Scientist A, Marine Scientist B, Marine
Scientist C)
Meaning 2 – ALTNARRA (also see KNOWDIS code
and Level 3 codes for additional meanings)
Risks that by including other domains will cause
information to be mixed, thereby diluting the science
and integrity of information about Ocean Acidification.
However, there is acknowledgement that this cannot
be avoided and that other domains should also be
involved.
(Marine Scientist B)
BEHAVCNG BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
Weaning society away from its dependence on high
carbon living to reduced carbon usage through
changes in individual conduct. Refer to NRG, for
definition relating to CO2 caused by energy)
130 | P a g e
Meaning 1 – identify domains in society who will
promote low carbon changes
(Marine Scientist A, Marine Scientist F)
Meaning 2 – view that individuals should take direct
responsibility for low carbon lifestyle and manage
energy wastage. (Marine Scientist F )
(Marine Scientist B, Marine Scientist C, Marine
Scientist F)
Meaning 3 – thinking about the CO2 problem and its
local effects on communities, would contribute to
targeted behaviour change.
(Marine Scientist B, Marine Scientist C, Marine
Scientist F)
BIODIVERS BIODIVERSITY
Biodiversity expresses variety of life within DNA,
ecosystems and across species. It is a measure of
biological health and plays a part in regulation of
climate. (Turley and Boot, 2011) Marine Scientist A,
Marine Scientist B)
Meaning 1 - Anthropogenic CO2 and its effects on the
three stressors that effect climate will affect life forms
on earth causing mass extinction events.
(Marine Scientist B)
Meaning 2 – Supports climate change boundaries for
biodiversity protection, via avoidance of three climate
stressors. (Marine Scientist B)
Meaning 3 – Biodiversity and ecosystem health is
integral to societal welfare. (Marine Scientist B,
Marine Scientist E, Marine Scientist F)
Meaning 4 - Marine protected areas are essential for
ecosystem health and biodiversity. (Marine Scientist
A, Marine Scientist F)
Counter opinion 1 – Defending societal wealth and
GDP is more important than defending biodiversity.
(See GDP for definition) (Marine Scientist H)
CHEM CHEMISTRY
Ocean chemistry can be empirically measured as well
as theoretically modelled. Direct measurement of
ocean chemistry is used as evidence against sceptics
who can argue that theoretical modelling is subject to
bias.
(Marine Scientist B, Marine Scientist E)
CLIMCHAG CLIMATE CHANGE
Distinct from Level 1 CCPOVOP code which is defined
as no change in conception from original UK
government position. CLIMCHAG, expresses
awareness of Climate Change issues, but uses its
storylines to benefit Ocean Acidification.
Meaning 1 – All Marine Scientists are concerned by
the polarity between those who accept and deny
Climate Change and the lack of inaction that has come
from that.
Meaning 2 – Intention to leverage the Climate Change
131 | P a g e
framework to benefit Ocean Acidification as a young
science.
(Marine Scientists B,C,D,E, F)
Meaning 3 – Ocean Acidification may provide
additional weight to the Climate Change argument to
bring about better actions or greater cuts to control
CO2 emissions.
(Marine Scientist C, Marine Scientist E, Marine
Scientist F, Marine Scientist G)
Meaning 4 – Ocean Acidification is yet to make it onto
the international policy agenda, so Climate Change
frameworks are utilised
(Marine Scientist C)
COMMUNITY COMMUNITY
Meaning 1 - Communities such as MedSea, UKOA,
BIOACID, EPOCA (programmes) – share science
information within RUG community to increase
knowledge. UK government funds UKOA. EU E7 funds
all the others.
Marine Scientist F, B, C, D, Baxter
Meaning 2 – International communities are taking
Ocean Acidification very seriously and have been
quick to add it to their research programmes; US,
Australia, EU.
Marine Scientist B, C, D, F
ECONVAL ECONOMIC
VALUATION
An approach that is used by policy makers to assess
the financial worth or value of natural ecosystems
that are deemed as beneficial assets to society.
(Marine Scientists H, I J).
Some scientists oppose economic valuation rendering
it meaningless:
Counter opinion 1:
Not a meaningful way of communicating benefits to
society. Use of imagery is a better and more
meaningful way to make decisions.
(Marine Scientist A)
Counter opinion 2:
We cannot give certainties that are linked to economic
valuation, so use of this method makes sound decision
making difficult.
(Marine Scientist B)
ECOSYSH ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
Meaning 1 – Evidence that ocean acidification is
affecting the health and lifespan of marine biota,
where 80% are not surviving into adulthood. (Bridges
et al, 2001:11,13, 25).
Marine Scientist D, Marine Scientist A)
Meaning 2 - Supports a precautionary principle for
managing risk to ecosystem health in the absence of
scientific consensus, but critises practical usage which
emphasises single stock management of marine life
rather than whole ecosystems.
132 | P a g e
(MS Marine Scientist D, Marine Scientist F)
Meaning 3 – Supports climate change boundaries for
biodiversity protection, via avoidance of three climate
stressors. (Marine Scientist B)
Meaning 4 - Use of marine protected areas to protect
ecosystem health and biodiversity and restore it back
to health where recovery is needed.
(Marine Scientist A, Marine Scientist F)
Meaning 5 – There is enough evidence about the risks
of Ocean Acidification, so current inaction for effective
policy making and environmental protection is
unacceptable, even if there is an absence of scientific
evidence.
(Marine Scientist A, Marine Scientist E)
EVIDCN EVIDENCE
Scientific evidence should be peer reviewed prior to
dissemination it into the public domain.
Meaning 1 – There are scientific challenges in
providing clear evidence with regards to tipping points
for Ocean Acidification. We are as close to the FACTS
as we can know. So, even if there are errors in the
science, policy makers need to act in cutting carbon
dioxide. (Marine Scientist B)
Counter opinion 1 – “We must carry out more
research so that we can ascertain the tipping points
for Ocean Acidification, Climate Change and
combination of the two so that we understand the
risks.” (Marine Scientist I)
Meaning 2 - Refer to KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINTATION
USING BAYSIAN BELIEF SYSTEM for further
information in expressing evidence levels with
confidence.
GDP GROSS DOMESTIC
PRODUCT
GDP represents a country’s wealth in terms of goods
and services output. It has historically been linked to
energy supply from oil where security of supply
facilitates economic progress. Economic progress is
defined in terms of a countries growth from its
economic output. (Coley, 2011:14-22, 59-69)
Counter opinion 1 – Paradox that CO2 emissions
require reduction and sustainable practices need to be
in place. But during periods of economic growth, CO2
emissions tend to increase, due to greater economic
output.
During periods of economic recession, green measures
are less likely to be high on the agenda. Government
cuts and reduction in finances, means that better and
more sustainable actions are discounted. Government
legislative cuts on wind subsidies are an example.
(Marine Scientist F). Refer to POLSYS, 3ii for further
explanation about changes in political thinking.
133 | P a g e
Meaning 1 – Used as a measure of societal risk
determined by economic damage.
(Marine Scientist sG, H, I)
Counter opinion 2 – See Level 3 code, Sustainable
Practices.
(Marine Scientist A)
GEOENG GEO-ENGINEERING
Technocratic solutions in managing the effects of
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification (Turley,
Keizer, Williamson, 2011)
- Carbon capture storage (CCS)
- Atmospheric aerosols
- Reflector mirrors
- Liming ocean/ soil
Counter opinion 1 – “All methods have geo-political
problems, with winners and losers.”
Marine scientist H
Counter opinion 2– Suggestion that it might be better
not to implement geo-engineering. “It might not be as
bad, if we don’t do anything…. It’s really difficult to get
these propositions through and they don’t take us
back to original climate…We would have a different
world climate which would be advantageous for some
and disadvantageous for others…
Counter opinion 3 – we should only look at geo-
engineering as a last resort. Marine scientist H. Geo-
engineering really is a desperate measure.”
Carbon capture storage (CCS)
Meaning 1 – Geo-engineering CCS is on the agenda for
the UK and EU designed to remove the effects of CO2
at source.
(House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee 2010; Kruger 2011; Marine Scientist H)
Meaning 2 – It seems that ocean acidification is
providing another argument to push ahead with CCS.
The argument says that it is better if CO2 goes into the
seabed rather than the sea, which is going to happen
if it goes into the air.(Marine Scientist F)
Counter opinion 1 – It would be better to spend the
money on behaviour change and not to produce CO2
in the first place. (Marine Scientist F, Marine Scientist
C)
Meaning 3 - Refers to past laws that have been
134 | P a g e
overturned to account for problems in the marine
environment. (Marine Scientist E was involved).
In 2006, The London Protocol (previously London
Convention, but less pre-cautionary version) was
amended to allow CCS; storage or disposal of CO2
under the seabed. The London Protocol was not so
much concerned with Climate Change, but rather the
impact of CO2 on the marine environment (Marine
Scientist E, Marine Scientist F, Marine Scientist G,
Marine Scientist I).
Meaning 4 - The UNFCCC are looking at the potential
for CCS (carbon capture storage) under the CDM.
(Marine Scientist F). REFER to Level 2 code CDM, for
CDM definition.
Counter opinion 1 – There are many open questions
to do with overall governance; obligations, liabilities
and monitoring. CDM countries are not likely to have
the capacity to do any of the monitoring and it is not
clear where the liabilities lie. (Marine Scientist F)
Meaning 5 – “To explore how the UK can build on its
position as one of the leaders in the development of
geo-engineering governance.”
(UK government Policy document objectives: (Kruger,
2011)
Meaning 6 - It is likely that we will need to use geo-
engineering to mitigate climate change as we are on a
trajectory of 4, 5, 6 degrees centigrade, which are
outside the safe 2 degree limit. But geo-engineering is
not a decision to be taken lightly.
Marine Scientist H, I. We should remain within a 2
degree limit so as to not impact GDP. Marine scientist
H, Marine scientist I
Meaning 7 – CCS is very easy to implement. The
infrastructure pipes and oil wells are already in place
where oil companies extract oil from below the
seabed. We just need about half a dozen pilots before
we implement it.
(Marine Scientist E, Marine Scientist H)
Meaning 8 – there should be no leakages with CCS as
long as we follow best practice guidelines, but only if
we follow best practice.
(Marine scientist H)
Meaning 9 – CCS could be used as an intermediate
step before going into non carbon energy.
(Marine Scientists G,I)
Counter opinion 1 – CCS is extremely complex to
implement and has not yet been tested.
135 | P a g e
Only a small proportion of the existing infrastructure
from current oil platforms and wells might be able to
be used, but we have to be very careful about using
such pipework to transport something as corrosive as
CO2.
(DECC, Marine Scientist F)
Counter opinion 2 – there are global governance and
liability issues related to storage of CO2 that are highly
complex and questions about how transboundary
costs would be managed, how to dispose of CO2 once
it’s been extracted and who would take responsibility
for any leakages. (Marine Scientist F, Marine Scientist
G, Marine scientist H).”Politically it’s a mess.” (Marine
Scientist F, “Very untidy” (Marine scientist H)
Counter opinion 3 –There seems to be a lot of hype
about CCS. It is not as well developed as it should be
by now, “because it’s so expensive. The exploration
phase, the capture of CO2, the infrastructure that you
would need to either put it in place or to modify. The
distances in which you have to transport it, the
monitoring you need to have in place that still hasn’t
been defined. (Marine Scientist F)
Counter opinion 4 – It could cause Tsunamis’’ if CCS is
implemented incorrectly. By pumping CO2 through
geological structures at high pressure “could impact
locally and even further afield. We still don’t know
what the risks are of displacing what’s already in the
reservoirs. If you’re displacing brine, then you have a
very high mineral content, perhaps very high metal
content from the reservoir. You could be impacting
with other acquifires…the seabed…it really becomes
difficult to know.”(Marine Scientist F)
Counter opinion 4 – “…this solution only serves to
benefit the northern white rich man.”
(Marine Scientist G on CBD, ETC)
Counter opinion 5 – CCS as a geo-engineering method
could damage biodiversity. (CBD, ETC)
Counter opinion on counter opinion 5 – “we need to
make the CBD see sense.” (Marine Scientist E). That
if we are on a trajectory beyond 2 degrees, then CCS
as a mitigation tool could benefit climate change,
ocean acidification and biodiversity. (Marine Scientist
E, Marine Scientist G)
“ETC is really immoral, because they wrongly influence
the CBD on geo-engineering decisions. If we are on a
trajectory beyond 2 degrees, then we need to weigh
up whether CCS with its risks, would be better for
biodiversity than increased global warming.”
(Marine Scientist G)
136 | P a g e
Counter opinion 6 – “…not seen overwhelming
arguments that CCS works. Why invest in these
technologies when there are lots of outstanding
questions about the ability to mitigate CO2 effectively,
the technology and governance. Such technologies
don’t solve the source problem. They are only seen as
bridging gaps that treat the symptoms and not the
cause. Investment should be put into societal
behaviour shift and effective renewables strategy
would be preferred approach.”
(Marine Scientist C)
Counter opinion 7 (agree with 6) – behaviour change
is a preferred approach to technocratic geo-
engineering solutions.
(Marine Scientist A, Marine Scientist B, Marine
Scientist C, Marine Scientist F, Marine Scientist H)
Counter opinion 8 – CCS coal fired power station
scrubbers reduce CO2 but also reduce the efficiency of
the power station. This would drive up the costs of
energy. So, all countries would need to opt for CCS to
keep the costs down.
Atmospheric aerosols
View that all geo-engineering solutions should be
researched, but acknowledgement that all come with
risks that should be understood.
Meaning 1- Atmospheric aerosols in the upper
atmosphere would produce a cooling effect along with
global dimming and we are reasonably confident it
works. Use in redistribution of world heat (Marine
Scientist H)
Counter opinion 1 –…but would produce a drier world
with less rainfall …models are not very accurate… but
the Monsoon season could be affected and possibly
switched to another region.
Reflector mirrors
Meaning 1 - Mirrors could be placed in space to reflect
the sun’s heat away from the earth, decreasing earth’s
incoming radiation balance.
( Marine Scientists E, H, J)
Liming ocean/ soil
Meaning 1 - Crushed calcium carbonate rocks could be
used in the ocean or soil to absorb CO2 and should be
spread over the surface.
Counter opinion 1 – it would be a very messy process
with carbonate rock all over the place.
Counter opinion 2 - ocean liming is a very slow
process and may take 1000 years to increase alkalinity
137 | P a g e
to counter Ocean Acidification. Due to the slowness
of the effect, means that it could sink to the bottom of
the sea.
(Marine Scientist H)
Supporting counter opinion 2 – early parameter
modelling of the Arctic ocean demonstrates that
intention to direct calcium carbonate to areas where
there is decreased pH levels, would fail. Calcium
carbonate would sink to the bottom of the ocean in
misplaced areas causing increased pH which could
have adverse effects similar in principle to bleaching.
(Marine Scientist J)
GEOPOL GEOPOLITICAL Climate Change and Ocean Acidification are complex
environmental problems that require global
cooperation in formalising definitive solutions that
lead to meaningful action (Harris 2007, Helm 2008)
Meaning 1 – cross cultural and economic motivation
for individual countries, often leads to a response that
is not proportionate to the problem (Harris 2007;
Helm2008; Marine Scientist F)
Meaning 2 – There are existing global governance
gaps that cross international political boundaries that
could stall CO2 mitigation activities such as CCS.(See
geo-engineering for further definition
(Marine Scientists F, G, H)
HPI HAPPINESS PLANET
INDEX
The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is a global measure of
sustainable well-being. The HPI measures the extent
to which countries deliver long, happy, sustainable
lives for people. The Index uses global data on life
expectancy, experienced well-being and Ecological
Footprint. (Abdullah, Michaelson, Shah et al, NEF,
2012;(Marine Scientist F)
INACTI INACTION Meaning 1 - Inaction can be caused by problem
framing of climate change or ocean acidification.
Negative/ loss frames are said to paralyse behaviour
leading to inaction. (Refer to table 9 for DV 3,
FRMLOSS for further information). (Bradshore and
Borchers 2000), Marine Scientist B, Marine Scientist
E, Marine Scientist C, Marine Scientist F)
Meaning 2 - Other forms of inaction refer to knowing
about a problem, but choosing not to act. (Marine
Scientist B, Marine Scientist A)
INTERGEN INTERGENERATION Meaning 1 - The idea that each generation has access
to more information than previous generations, who
will inherently judge the last.
(Marine Scientist B, Marine Scientist E)
Meaning 2 – Politicians are reluctant to make
decisions that affect future generations, as it is seen as
risky politically, given the short term election cycles
that we experience. (Marine Scientist F)
(Refer to Level 2 code, POLSYS for further meanings
138 | P a g e
about Policy related to issues.)
KNOWDIS KNOWLEDGE The RUG (reference user group) is a communications
outreach science network and co-ordination group
that synthesises peer reviewed scientific evidence into
reliable messaging in preparation for transformation
and dissemination. The coalition network works to
ensure communications are robust for policy makers
in decision making and to buffer distorted counter
claims from denier communities.
(Marine Scientist A, Marine Scientist B, Marine
Scientist C , Marine Scientist D, Marine Scientist E,
Marine Scientist F)
Such networks are often useful in creating a horizontal
structure by which to manage competing interests of
actors, prior to transformation and dissemination to
policy makers and general public. (Pattberg 2010:147)
Meaning 1 - KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION (function)
Assurance that information is robust prior to
knowledge dispersal. RUG is instrumental in keeping
the science credible, clear and ensures that there is
evidence that underpins it.
(Marine Scientists B, C, D, E, G)
Meaning 2 - KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION (function)
We should improve the way in which we disseminate
information by using more creative ways such as
imagery rather than meaningless numbers in
communication which people cannot relate to.
(Marine Scientist A)
Meaning 2 - KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER (function)
Training scientists and other those in other domains in
communication methods. This is a form of knowledge
transfer. (Marine Scientist A)
Meaning 4 – KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINTATION USING
BAYSIAN BELIEF SYSTEM
To improve the reliability and robustness of
information, marine scientists are using the Bayesian
belief system to express confidence levels for scientific
evidence in Ocean Acidification data.
(Marine Scientist D)
Given this is a belief system, it is somewhat subjective
and people tend to have confidence in information as
believable or correct either if the information is
constrained by cause and effect processes or by the
credibility and background of the communicator.
(Hulme 2012:84-87)
Meaning 5 – KNOWLEDGE, OTHER NARRATIVES (also
see ALTNARRA code)
Some believe that there is room for other societal
domains to be involved in creation and dissemination
of knowledge for Ocean Acidification. Some of these
narratives should yield local knowledge.
139 | P a g e
(Marine Scientist A)
Meaning 61i – KNOWLEDGE, DENIER COMMUNITIES
(also see ALTNARRA code)
Risks that include other domains will cause
information to be mixed, thereby diluting the science
and integrity of information about Ocean Acidification.
Denier communities are gathering momentum.
(Marine Scientist A, Marine Scientist B)
Meaning 62i, But, there is acknowledgement that this
cannot be avoided and that other domains should also
be involved.
(Marine Scientist B)
Counter opinion 1 – Deniers such as Matt Ridley agree
that ocean acidification is occurring, but argues that it
is beneficial to marine life.
(Lynas 2011 on Matt Ridley)
Meaning 8 – KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION, D (Level
3 code EBLMS)
Meaning 7 – KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION,
EMBLEMS (Level 3 code EBLMS)
Meaning 1 - Use of Climate Change emblems or
symbols, such as polar bears’ are better placed to
communicate the dangers of Climate Change and
Ocean Acidification rather than coccolithophores or
sea butterflies. People are less likely to respond to
these as representations of Ocean Acidification.
(Marine Scientist A)
LEGAL LEGAL Refers to existing legal infrastructure for; climate
change , marine laws and general pollution laws that
are in place that may support Ocean Acidification
either in current or in future modified form.
(Marine Scientists B,C,E, F).
Meaning 1i - Meaning 2 - (Marine Scientist C, Marine
Scientist F)
Meaning 1ii - The UN makes reference to Ocean
Acidification within its ocean sections. (Marine
Scientist F).
Meaning 1iii - The CBD is interested in Ocean
Acidification. (Marine Scientist A, Carol, Laffoley,
Marine Scientist F)
Meaning 1iv - The London Protocol for prevention of
Marine Pollution is interested in Ocean Acidification.
UNCLOS, United Nations Convention for the Law of the
Sea could retrospectively be applied to Ocean
Acidification. (Marine Scientist F). These laws
accommodate Ocean Dumping and Marine Pollution
and could be extended in other domain areas such as
140 | P a g e
Ocean Acidification by modifying standards
documents and through communications initiatives.
There are general obligations to protect the marine
environment from all sorts of pollution and CO2 could
be included. (Marine Scientist F).
Meaning 2 - Refers to past laws that have been
overturned to account for problems in the marine
environment. (Marine Scientist E was involved).
In 2006, The London Protocol (previously London
Convention, but less pre-cautionary version) was
amended to allow CCS; storage or disposal of CO2
under the seabed. The London Protocol was not so
much concerned with Climate Change, but rather the
impact of CO2 on the marine environment. (Marine
Scientist E, Marine Scientist F, DECC, Defra).
Scientific modelling practice used in assessing
atmospheric climate as well as the ocean carbonate
cycle.
(Tyrell 2007, Watson, Metz, Schuster, 2011; Marine
Scientist D)
Meaning 1 –Modelling can provide good evidence
about the causes of a problem, but there are many
uncertainties that can make predictions difficult.
(Marine Scientist B, Marine Scientist H)
NRG ENERGY Approach to energy production in terms of
renewables or fossil fuels. The UK government has
legally pledged to cut emissions by 50% to 1990 levels
by 2025 (No author, DECC 2013).
Counter opinion 1 - Much energy is lost in
transmission. Different models should be examined
for creating and generating energy efficiency that are
based on a small number of interacting more local
renewable energy suppliers. This would also enable
security of supply. (Marine Scientist F)
Counter opinion 2- There is always a greater need to
cut emissions. 50% by 2050 is not likely to be enough.
“Cuts need to be deeper by 2050.”
(Marine Scientist F)
Counter opinion 3– If we use CCS as a geo-engineering
method to store fossil fuels at source, then energy
costs are likely to increase unless countries most
countries commit to it. (Marine Scientist H)
For definition REFER to Level 1 code GEOENG (CCS).
Counter opinion 4 – There needs to be a more
effective energy strategy to get around transboundary
policy issues and create a strong CO2 mitigation
strategy.
(Marine Scientist F)
141 | P a g e
OCEAN OCEAN Distinct from Level 1 OACHNGPOV code, which is
defined as change in conception of risk or solution
pathway in light of new information.
OCEAN defines awareness of specific knowledge
about the Marine environment and related processes.
This level 2 code is sometimes mapped to other level
2 codes such as ECOSYSH, LEGAL and GEOENG liming,
to give it orientation.
POLSYS POLITICAL SYSTEM Meaning 1 – Refers to existing legal infrastructure for;
climate change , marine laws and general pollution
laws that are in place that may support Ocean
Acidification either in current or in future modified
form. (Refer to LEGAL for further definition)
(Marine Scientists B,C, E,G, F).
Meaning 2- The science problems are understood, but
the big elephant in the room is the policy question,
where there are existing gaps that need to be
resolved.
(Marine Scientist A)
Meaning 3i – There is a belief that the UK political
system is stressed. Decisions are typified by short
election cycles, which are incompatible with
environmental problems that require ongoing longer
term solutions which fall outside of the short five year
electoral timescale. Political decisions that affect
societal behaviour are not conducive to short term
political cycles. (Marine Scientist B, Marine Scientist
F)
Meaning 3ii – There needs to be a change in political
thinking, if we are going to achieve better and more
sustainable actions. (Refer to counter opinion 2,
Marine Scientist F). This can be achieved via existing
political infrastructure. Political leadership should be
about having the courage and leadership to bring
about necessary actions, as well as giving people
information to make better bottom up decision
making. More environmentally conscious Nordic
countries are seen as liberal in some ways, but there is
much top down political direction about green issues.
Yet their populations seem to be happy with their
politicians as they are working to the interests of their
people, their future and the planet. (Marine Scientist
F).
Meaning 4 – Politicians are reluctant to make
decisions that affect future generations, as it is seen as
142 | P a g e
risky politically, given the short term election cycles
that we experience. (Marine Scientist F). (Also refer
to Level 2 code, INTERGEN for further meanings about
future generations.)
Meaning 5 –There is a governance problem, where
companies and states are in competition. A global
government for the planet could mitigate CO2 more
effectively. (Marine Scientist F)
Meaning 6 - Policy is generally evolutionary. When events happen, irrational decisions become rational very quickly. Legislation is driven by events, so at some point events occur which leads to a revolution in policy
making. (Marine Scientist B, Marine Scientist F). Events touch a lot of people. There is a point of view that carbon cost cutting will occur when people are impacted by the effects of CO2 on climate in that they can see and feel its impacts. (Yusoff 2011)
RESEARCH RESEARCH Meaning 1- Research in this context is a scientific
practice that examines magnitude of risk and
formalises evidence to for use in political decision
making. (Marine Scientists B, E, F, G, H, J) .
“It is almost a mantra of science that you need more
research.” (Marine Scientist F).
Counter opinion 1 – some would argue that there is
already a good understanding of the magnitude of risk
from existing research and that action would be a
better approach.
(Marine Scientist B, Marine Scientist F)
Counter opinion 2 – There will always be
uncertainties. A single experiment will only recognise
a certain number of variables.
(Marine Scientists B, F)
SCPTISM SCEPTISM Expressing doubt about climate change or ocean
acidification
Meaning 1 – neither one or both events are occurring
(Newell and Paterson, 2010)
Meaning 2 – one or both events are occurring and are
beneficial (Lynas 2011)
SCEN PROJECT SCIENCE PROJECT Future scenario projections, determined through
scientific method and modelling. (See modelling for
further definition)
Table 11: Value cognitions (level 2 codes) and respective meanings for each Marine Scientist as
outcome from coded mappings
143 | P a g e
Dictionaries Type 3
SENSE AND REFERENCE/ POLITICAL MEANINGS/ ETC
Discursive orientation
(Dictionary of codes expressing organisational and value judgments of storylines)
Level 3 dependent
variables (code)
Description of code Type of discourse in which orientation is
determined
COMPROM Compromise Where participants have been required
to settle with a particular line or
viewpoint after a disagreement with one
or more individuals or groups.
COPROD
(Hulme 2012:101)
Co-production science/
policy decision making
Experts with an awareness of scientific
and non-scientific goals. Many scientists
for Climate Change are said to be
involved in risk assessment and the policy
shaping. (Hulme 2012:101). This study
demonstrates that the same holds for
Ocean Acidification.
GL Government Line Use of functional language that maps
existing organisational documentation
that is in the public domain.
H Historical Propositional statements made about
past events.
OL Organisation or
Coalition group line
Use of functional language that maps
existing organisational documentation
that is in the public domain.
P Prediction Propositional statements made about
what might happen in the future. These
can be linked to evidence and can express
a viewpoint. This code maybe used in
conjunction with POV, OL or GL.
POV Participants own
perspective
Use of language such as swearing
signifying tension or disagreement,
reference to the pronoun ‘I’ or/ and
general display of nervousness about a
certain course of action.
X Explanation Clarification or further detail about a
propositional statement.
Table 12: Level 3 codes hook onto other Level 1, 2, 3 codes and provide orientation about
propositions as expressed in conversation which affects the meaning.
SENSE AND REFERENCE/ POLITICAL MEANINGS/ ETC
Narrative functions and PSN Orientations (Political, Scientific or Neutral), for level 2 dependent
variable data codes.
144 | P a g e
Level 2 dependent
variables (code)
Description of code Political,
Science or
Neutral
orientation
(PSN)
Functioning
narrative
ACID
ACIDIFICATION
Political
(i)Warning of dangers
of dangers of Ocean
Acidification.
(ii) communicate
the science to
lay people
ALTNARRA ALTERNATIVE
NARRATIVE
Political Behaviour change
BEHAVCNG BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
Political Behaviour change
BIODIVERS BIODIVERSITY
Neutral Protection, societal
value
CHEM CHEMISTRY
Science Science
explanation
CLIMCHAG CLIMATE CHANGE
Political Warning of dangers
of Climate Change
COALTION COALITION
Political Expert, trusted
COMMUNITY COMMUNITY
Political Expert, trusted,
flexible network
ORGANISATION ORGANISATION
Political Expert, trusted
ECONVAL ECONOMIC
VALUATION
Political Social costs or
ecosystem benefits
to society.
ECOSYSH ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
Neutral Protection
EVIDCN EVIDENCE
Science Science practice,
trusted, credible
GDP GROSS DOMESTIC
PRODUCT
Political Society is at risk
when its economy
is threatened
GEOENG GEO-ENGINEERING Political Mitigation, dangers
of implementing
Geo-engineering.
Unknown
consequences.
GEOPOL GEOPOLITICAL Political Transboundary
concerns
HPI HAPPINESS PLANET
INDEX
Political Alternate ways to
measure societal
value
INACTI INACTION Political Knowing but not
acting
INTERGEN INTERGENERATION Political Judgment, danger,
jeopardy
KNOWDIS KNOWLEDGE Political Discursive control
LEGAL LEGAL Political Obligation
145 | P a g e
MODEL MODEL Science Science practice,
robustness,
evidence
NRG ENERGY Political (i)Required for
economic progress
(ii)Contradicting
paradigm to
reduction of CO2 in
its present form.
(iii) Alternate
pathways required
to reduce CO2
OCEAN OCEAN Political Dangers of Ocean
Acidification to
Marine Health and
POLSYS POLITICAL SYSTEM Political Government
practices
RESEARCH RESEARCH Neutral Science practice,
trusted, credible
SCPTISM SCEPTISM Political Invalidate
hegemonic
ideology
SCEN PROJECT SCIENCE PROJECT Political Policy practice
Table 13: Level 3 codes hook onto other Level 1 and 2 codes and provide normative or factual
orientation.
Narrative functions and PSN Orientations (Political, Scientific or Neutral), for level 3 dependent
variable data codes.
Level 3 dependent
variables (code)
Description of code Political, Science or
Neutral
orientation
Functioning
narrative
CDM CLEAN DEV MECHANISM Poltical
CLEAN DEV
MECHANISM Political
Reduction of CO2
through fossil fuels
mitigation
approach
[UNFCCC , n.d.
Meeting report,
Annex 13]
CRL
CORALS Science/ Political In danger,
Biodiversity loss
Protection required
[Yusoff 2012]
EMBLMS EMBLEMS Political In danger,
Biodiversity loss
Protection required
[Yusoff 2012]
EMT EMOTIVE Political Mobilising society
to take
146 | P a g e
responsibility by
connecting through
their senses.
[Yusoff 2012]
ECN ECONOMIC ARG Political Argument that is
often used as an
excuse for inaction
in relation to
Climate Change.
[Bush 2001]
FRMLOSS LOSS FRAMES Political Attempts to
mobilise into
action. (It is said to
have the opposite
effect)
[Bradshore and
Borchers 2000]
FSH FISH Science/ Political Need to
understand future
Ocean Acidification
impacts to the
fishing industry
GBL GLOBAL Neutral Collaborative, we
are all in this
together. Requires
collective action.
IND INDUSTRY Political Need to
understand future
Ocean Acidification
impacts to
different
communities
industry
LCL LOCAL Political Touch the hearts
and minds of local
people, warning
them that Climate
Change and Ocean
Acidification can
affect them.
MSURE MEASURE Science Ocean Acidification
can be directly
measured.
Argument used
against sceptics
MONTREAL MONTREL PROTOCOL Political Successful legal
framework to
manage Ozone
gases.
SCRTY SECURITY Political Warning of dangers
of food and health
147 | P a g e
that threaten
society due to
Climate Change
and Ocean
Acidification
SHELFSH SHELLFISH Political Example that can
be used to
demonstrate how
Ocean Acidification
can impact society.
SUSTN SUSTAINABILITY Political Moral function,
doing the right
thing through
environmental
behavioural
practices.
TEMP TEMPERATURE Science Used in context
with Climate
Change to warn of
dangers
Table 14: Level 3 codes hook onto other Level 1 and 2 codes and provide normative or factual
orientation.
148 | P a g e
Appendix 4
Narrative reconstructions; Marine Scientist A solut ion pathway Solution pathway for Marine Scientist A demonstrates data coding working principles and narrative
pathway reconstructions. Corresponding problem pathway mapping example for Marine Scientist A is
outlined in Chapter 5, Data Coding.
An initial deconstruction of conception for solution pathway associated with ocean acidification Change
Point of View narrative (Level 1, OACHNPOV) for marine scientist A, outlined in tableau form below. Each
level 2 and 3 dependent variable codes are linked with numbers, map to corresponding data dictionary
codes and provides marine scientist A’s perspective. Each narrative reconstruction follows, using
corresponding codes to clarify the orientation for marine scientist A. Easy comparisons are drawn using the
dictionaries to determine consensus and disagreement amongst scientists. Marine scientist orientation is
denoted in italic text.
Narrative reconstruction by storyline for, OACHPOV conception of solution (1) for Marine Scientist A
shifts in light of new evidence in relation to the ocean acidification narrative.
Level 1 Level 2/3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2/3
SOLUTION
codes
OACHPOV
ALTNARRA (1) +
SHELFSH (1)
+POV
BIODIVERS (1)
+ OL
BEHAVCNG (I)
+ POV ALTNARRA (1) +
EMOTIVE (1) +
ALTNARRA
LOCALISED (1)+
ALTNARRA +
IND (1)+
ALTNARRA +
SUSTN (1) + POV
Code definition Ocean acidification
changed point of
view in light of
new evidence
Alternative
narrative, Shellfish
Industry
Biodiversity Behaviour change Alternative
narratives;
emotive, local,
industrial and
sustainable
Table 15, is a deconstruction of conception of solution pathway propositions for Marine scientist A.
SOLUTION (1), OACHPOV.
ALTNARRA (1) + SHELFSH (1) + POV
Alternative narrative, Shellfish Industry, Marine Scientist A own point of view.
Narratives that are current and peripheral or yet to be created. In some cases, new discursive
coalitions should be on boarded and may be outside of policy making from other societal domains.
Meaning 1 – ALTNARRA Consensus between Marine Scientists A, B and C
The US shellfish industry is already becoming impacted by ocean acidification. The UK shellfish industry
may also become issue and should be an area to one could work with.
Meaning 1 –Alternative narrative Marine scientist A
BIODIVERS (1) + OL
149 | P a g e
Biodiversity, Marine Scientist A, orientation towards CBD organisational line.
Biodiversity expresses variety of life within DNA, ecosystems and across species. It is a measure of
biological health and plays a part in regulation of climate. Meaning 1 -BIODIVERS Consensus between Marine
Scientists A, B and E).
Marine protected areas are essential for ecosystem health and biodiversity. Meaning 4 - BIODIVERS
Consensus between Marine Scientists A and F.
BEHAVCNG (I) + POV
Behaviour change, Marine Scientist A, own point of view expressed through discourse about leveraging
other societal domains that could bring about change.
Weaning society away from its dependence on high carbon living to reduced carbon usage through
changes in individual conduct. Identify domains in society who will promote low carbon changes.
Meaning 1 – BEHAVCNG Consensus between Marine Scientists A and F.
ALTNARRA + EMOTIVE + ALTNARRA + LOCALISED + ALTNARRA + IND + ALTNARRA + SUSTN (1) + POV
Alternative narratives; emotive, local, industrial and sustainable. Marine Scientist A, own point of view
expressed through discourse about leveraging other societal domains that could bring about change.
Meaning 1 - Narratives that are current and peripheral or yet to be created. In some cases, new
discursive coalitions should be on boarded and may be outside of policy making from other societal
domains. Meaning 1 – ALTNARRA Consensus between Marine Scientists A, B and C.
Local narratives that will move people are required. Meaning 1 – ALTNARRA + EMOTIVE Marine Scientist A
Local Alternative narrative; ocean acidification issues that will affect industry and local communities
should be considered. Focus on other segments within industry who can take on the ocean acidification
problem. Meaning 1 – ALTNARRA + LOCALISED + IND Marine Consensus between Marine Scientists A and C)
Alternative narrative; (Marine scientist A)
Sustainable practices that decouple economic production from the environment so as to not cause
ongoing degradation to the environment. Meaning 1 – ALTNARRA + SUSTN Marine Scientist A
Using the propositional statements or storylines above and referring back to the coded mappings
with interview details for Marine Scientist A to provide additional context, conception of solution
assessed into narrative form.
While Marine Scientist A is familiar with climate change, ocean acidification frames the solution
pathway. Marine Scientists A, B and C conceive of the Shellfish Industry as a lever to build
momentum for collective action. Marine Scientists B and E agree with A’s orientation towards
biodiversity through the Convention of Biodiversity (CBD) organisation. Focus should be on
behaviour change and other industry domains (Scientists A and C) should be included in bringing
about new framings and sustainable practices.
Scientists from conservation and academic domains collectively view such storylines as important
pathways to address ocean acidification. A further mapping of these storylines to their
organisational websites demonstrates that the biodiversity storyline is already sustained amongst
150 | P a g e
these communities and act as a strong challenger to other discursive domains. However, behaviour
change storylines are yet to gather momentum for ocean acidification.
