The Danish Biofuel Debate: Coupling Scientific and Politico-Economic Claims

Hansen, Janus

doi:10.1080/09505431.2013.808619

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The "Other" includes such domains as: criminal justice (e.g., Bromfield, 2012), sports (e.g., Parrish, 2008), tourism (e.g., Airey & Chong, 2010), and emergency management (e.g., Albright, 2011). The most frequent policy domain representing a clear plurality of applications is environment and energy with 70 (43 percent) applications (e.g., Blatter, 2009;Bukowski, 2007;Hansen, 2013). Other common policy domains include: public health (15) (e.g., Breton, Richard, Gagnon, Jacques, & Bergeron, 2008;Poulsen, 2014), education (14) (e.g., Beverwijk, Goedegebuure, & Huisman, 2008;DeBray, Scott, Lubienski, & Jabbar, 2014;Shakespeare, 2008), social welfare (12) (e.g., Klindt, 2011), science and technology (12) (e.g., Amougou & Larson, 2008;Kettell & Cairney, 2010), defense and foreign policy (8) (e.g., Pierce, 2011), economics and finance (7) (e.g., Buller & Lindstrom, 2013;Dressel, 2012), and urban planning and transportation (5) (e.g., Olsson, 2009).…”

Section: S22mentioning

confidence: 99%

There and Back Again: A Tale of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Pierce¹,

Peterson²,

Jones³

et al. 2017

Policy Studies Journal

127

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To better understand how the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is applied, this article catalogues and analyzes 161 applications of the ACF from 2007 to 2014. Building on a previous review of 80 applications of the ACF (1987–2006) conducted by Weible, Sabatier, and McQueen in 2009, this review examines both the breadth and depth of the framework. In terms of breadth, there are over 130 unique first authors from 25 countries, in almost 100 journals applying the framework, including a majority outside of the United States. In terms of depth, a plurality of applications analyzes environment and energy, subsystems at the national level, and utilizes qualitative methods of data collection and analyses. This review also explores how the three theoretical foci of the framework—advocacy coalitions, policy change, and policy‐oriented learning—are applied. Our findings suggest that the ACF balances common approaches for applying the framework with the specificity of particular contexts.

show abstract

Section: S22mentioning

confidence: 99%

There and Back Again: A Tale of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Pierce¹,

Peterson²,

Jones³

et al. 2017

Policy Studies Journal

127

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These two views have been pitted against each other ever since the classical dispute between the marquis de Condorcet and the Reverend Thomas Malthus at the end of the 18th century. Janus Hansen ( 2014 ) discerns in the Danish debate on biofuels two distinct scientific perspectives which can be seen as modern versions of these classical positions. With the technologically optimistic position corresponds what Hansen calls the “reductionist biorefinery perspective”; while the more pessimistic position which stresses the limits to growth corresponds to what he calls the “holistic bioscarcity perspective” (Hansen 2014 ).…”

Section: Reframing the Ethical Issues: Responsibility In An Interconnmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some observers also talk about third-generation fuels derived from algae, which is claimed to alter energy production completely in the future. Whereas the first-generation fuels are already in wide commercial circulation, second-generation ones are still not commercially viable and third-generation fuels are still in early R&D stages” (Hansen 2014 , p. 80).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Once the rockets are up, who should care where they come down? The problem of responsibility ascription for the negative consequences of biofuel innovations

Tempels

Belt

2016

SpringerPlus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responsible Innovation (RI) is often heralded in EU policy circles as a means to achieve ethically acceptable, sustainable innovations. Yet, conceptual questions on the specific notion of ‘responsibility’ and to what extent an innovation can be ‘responsible’ are only partly addressed. In this chapter the question of responsibility for the indirect negative effects of biofuel innovations is explored. While initially hailed as one of the much needed solutions in the global struggle against climate change, the use of biofuels has become increasingly criticised. It is argued that the increased production of biofuels has put smallholder farmers out of business, has given rise to increased food prices, sparking food riots in several countries, while also contributing to further environmental degradation as the demand for new biofuels requires the development of new croplands at the cost of forests and peat lands. In the current market-based system it is customary to disburden researchers and business companies from any responsibility for the more remote consequences of their actions. When harmful consequences are brought about through the mediation of (perhaps a long series of) market transactions, they are often considered inevitable and excusable and not an appropriate occasion for invoking anybody’s responsibility. But how broad is the scope of responsibility when it comes to the above mentioned social and ecological problems? By invoking the sacred duty to “innovate”, the business company could perhaps be exculpated. In our age, innovation is often so much celebrated that many negative impacts are duly accepted as the inevitable price of progress. By approaching responsibility from a perspective that takes into account the economic and ecological interconnectedness of the world, we show how the debate on Responsible Innovation in biofuels becomes tied in with global debates on economic justice and bioscarcity. In conclusion we argue that if we—assuming this interconnectedness—take the current requirements of “Responsible” Innovation seriously, it would result in a demanding practice that calls for a substantial departure from business as usual, which prompts the question to what extent it is reasonable to incorporate what are actually demands for global justice in programs for innovation.

show abstract

“…Research starts from processes operating at the molecular level and products and production processes are subsequently constructed. In principle, this allows the transformation of biomass into a very wide spectrum of marketable products [31].…”

Section: The Bio-technology Visionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Albrecht et al [78] call for greater emphasis in research on transdisciplinary sustainability topics related to e.g., cultivation potentials of sustainable biomass, global fair trade, and wider participation in discussions and decisions on transition processes. Finally, calls are made for research that takes the global scale as the point of departure and accounts for the negative consequences of the competing bioeconomy visions [31].…”

Section: The Bio-ecology Visionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The notion of the bioeconomy has gained importance in both research and policy debates over the last decade, and is frequently argued to be a key part of the solution to multiple grand challenges. Despite this, there seems to be little consensus concerning what bioeconomy actually implies. Consequently, this paper seeks to enhance our understanding of what the notion of bioeconomy means by exploring the origins, uptake, and contents of the term "bioeconomy" in the academic literature. Firstly, we perform a bibliometric analysis that highlights that the bioeconomy research community is still rather fragmented and distributed across many different fields of science, even if natural and engineering sciences take up the most central role. Secondly, we carry out a literature review that identifies three visions of the bioeconomy. The bio-technology vision emphasises the importance of bio-technology research and application and commercialisation of bio-technology in different sectors of the economy. The bio-resource vision focuses on processing and upgrading of biological raw materials, as well as on the establishment of new value chains. Finally, the bio-ecology vision highlights sustainability and ecological processes that optimise the use of energy and nutrients, promote biodiversity, and avoid monocultures and soil degradation.

show abstract

The Danish Biofuel Debate: Coupling Scientific and Politico-Economic Claims

Cited by 19 publications

References 18 publications

There and Back Again: A Tale of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

There and Back Again: A Tale of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Once the rockets are up, who should care where they come down? The problem of responsibility ascription for the negative consequences of biofuel innovations

What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About