Climate change as a knowledge controversy: Investigating debates over science and policy Amelia Sharman A thesis submitted to the Department of Geography and Environment of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2015 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 77,072 words. Statement of conjoint work I confirm that Chapters 4 and 5 were jointly co-authored with Dr Candice Howarth and I contributed 50% of this work. I confirm that Chapter 7 was jointly co-authored with Dr Richard Perkins and I contributed 50% of this work. 2 Abstract Understanding climate change as a knowledge controversy, this thesis provides new insights into the form, value and impact of the climate change debate on science and policy processes. Based on 99 interviews in New Zealand and the United Kingdom as well as social network analysis, it provides an original contribution to knowledge by identifying previously unknown sites of knowledge contestation within the climate change debate, in addition to contributory factors, and potential solutions to, debate polarisation. It also addresses a fundamental gap in the literature regarding the impact of controversy on the production of scientific knowledge and policy decision-making. This thesis comprises five standalone papers (Chapters 2-6) which together explore climate change as a knowledge controversy using frameworks from science and technology studies, sociology and geography. Chapter 2 finds that the most central blogs within the climate sceptical blogosphere predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate. It argues that by acting as an alternative public site of expertise, the blogosphere may be playing a central role in perpetuating doubt regarding the scientific basis for climate change policymaking. Chapter 3 suggests that the binary and dualistic format of labels used within the climate debate such as “denier” or “alarmist” contribute towards polarisation by reducing possibilities for constructive dialogue. Chapter 4 investigates rationales for debate participation and argues that identifying and emphasising commonalities between previously polarised individuals may serve to reduce antagonism within the climate change debate. Chapter 5 investigates the impact of controversy on the production of scientific knowledge and finds that climate scientists identify substantial impacts on their agency as scientists, but not on scientific practice. It argues that this distinction indicates that boundary- making may be understood as a more active and explicit process under conditions of controversy. Finally, Chapter 6 introduces the concept of post-decisional logics of inaction, emphasising the role of place in determining the influence of controversial knowledge claims on climate change policymaking. These findings make explicit the underlying politics of knowledge inherent within the climate change debate, and emphasise the need for a more attentive consideration of the role of knowledge, place and performativity in contested science and policy environments. 3 Acknowledgements This thesis would not exist without my excellent supervisor Richard Perkins, who has been incredibly supportive, both academically and personally, throughout the entire PhD process—I could not have asked for a better supervisor. I am tremendously and sincerely grateful for all the effort you put into me and my work. Thank you also to Michael Mason, my review supervisor, and the other staff members from the Department of Geography and Environment and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (GRI) for your insightful questions, advice and comments on my research. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my viva examiners, Professor David Demeritt and Professor Reiner Grundmann, for their helpful comments and suggestions. Thank you to Candice Howarth—while wrestling our papers into submission took some time, it was invaluable to learn exactly what it means to co-author and it has done my planning and project management skills no end of good. Hopefully there will be many more such occasions in the future. I am extremely thankful to all those who participated in this research, either as interviewees or those who helped me access relevant resources and information, as without their generous donations of time and willingness to talk, much of this research would not have been possible. The insightful comments and suggestions from the anonymous reviewers who generously gave their time to improve the papers submitted for external peer review as part of this thesis are also very gratefully acknowledged. The changes were invariably for the better and were extremely useful in honing my writing over the course of the PhD. Thank you to LSE for granting me an LSE PhD Scholarship, without which I would not have been able to carry out this research. Financial and other support from the Department of Geography and Environment, GRI, and the Research and Development Management Association is also very gratefully acknowledged. To all my fellow GRI PhD students and staff—there could not have been a lovelier group of people with whom to spend four years. I have made some true friendships and will always look back on my time at GRI with real affection. Thank you for being academically encouraging, but also bringing such a sense of fun and camaraderie to work every day. 4 Thank you to the wonderful people involved with LSE Bees. Caring for our bees was the perfect antidote to any stressful PhD moments and along with everything I have learned academically while at LSE, learning the value of, and how to care for bees is something I will take with me forever. I am eternally thankful to my parents, Christine and Geoff. Your unwavering support for my education has been invaluable for getting me to where I am today and there is no way I could have achieved this goal without your love and guidance. Finally, and most especially, thank you to my husband Adrian. Your constant encouragement and love has been fundamental to making this PhD a reality. You cracked the whip and kept me on the straight and narrow (who knows what I could achieve with an nth of your self-discipline!) but were also so supportive and I knew that you were there with me every step of the way. Any remaining errors remain solely and entirely my own. 5 Table of contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Table of contents ............................................................................................................................................ 6 List of tables ................................................................................................................................................... 10 List of figures ................................................................................................................................................. 10 List of frequently used abbreviations ................................................................................................. 12 Chapter 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 13 1.1.1 Research motivation ..................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Research aims and thesis structure.................................................................................. 17 1.2.1 Research location ........................................................................................................... 23 1.3 Notes on thesis format ........................................................................................................... 25 1.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 25 1.5 Notes .............................................................................................................................................. 26 1.6 References ................................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 2. Mapping the climate sceptical blogosphere .............................................................. 34 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................