Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Global Warming Potentials: ambiguity or precisi...

Research

Associated organisational unit

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Global Warming Potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Global Warming Potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy? / Shackley, S.; Wynne, B. E.
In: Climate Research, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1997, p. 89-106.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Shackley, S & Wynne, BE 1997, 'Global Warming Potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy?', Climate Research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 89-106. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr0008089

APA

Shackley, S., & Wynne, B. E. (1997). Global Warming Potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy? Climate Research, 8(2), 89-106. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr0008089

Vancouver

Shackley S, Wynne BE. Global Warming Potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy? Climate Research. 1997;8(2):89-106. doi: 10.3354/cr0008089

Author

Shackley, S. ; Wynne, B. E. / Global Warming Potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy?. In: Climate Research. 1997 ; Vol. 8, No. 2. pp. 89-106.

Bibtex

@article{89fa954a72264b909405ae8db1c3965b,
title = "Global Warming Potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy?",
abstract = "It is widely assumed that the more certain and precise the scientific knowledge-base for predicting and understanding climate change, the better defined and robust will be the policy measures undertaken in response. In this paper we argue to the contrary that in the case of Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) ambiguity in their precise meaning is a major reason why they have been developed and continue as scientific policy tools [although this is not how they are commonly represented in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)]. We survey and analyse the range of opinion on GWPs with respect to their scientific stability and comprehensiveness and argue that the utility of GWPs has to be evaluated in terms of their symbolic, interactional and heuristic effects as well as with respect to their direct instrumental uses. In addition, we argue that scientific discussion of GWPs commonly incorporates elements of the social and policy contexts of their application and provide several examples from detailed discussions at the IPCC. We endeavour to account for the ambiguous identity of GWPs and draw out several implications from the findings of the paper for the construction and use of scientific tools in policy.",
keywords = "GWPs · Scientific ambiguity · International climate policymaking",
author = "S. Shackley and Wynne, {B. E.}",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 1999 Inter-Research",
year = "1997",
doi = "10.3354/cr0008089",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "89--106",
journal = "Climate Research",
issn = "0936-577X",
publisher = "Inter-Research",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Global Warming Potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy?

AU - Shackley, S.

AU - Wynne, B. E.

N1 - Copyright © 1999 Inter-Research

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - It is widely assumed that the more certain and precise the scientific knowledge-base for predicting and understanding climate change, the better defined and robust will be the policy measures undertaken in response. In this paper we argue to the contrary that in the case of Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) ambiguity in their precise meaning is a major reason why they have been developed and continue as scientific policy tools [although this is not how they are commonly represented in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)]. We survey and analyse the range of opinion on GWPs with respect to their scientific stability and comprehensiveness and argue that the utility of GWPs has to be evaluated in terms of their symbolic, interactional and heuristic effects as well as with respect to their direct instrumental uses. In addition, we argue that scientific discussion of GWPs commonly incorporates elements of the social and policy contexts of their application and provide several examples from detailed discussions at the IPCC. We endeavour to account for the ambiguous identity of GWPs and draw out several implications from the findings of the paper for the construction and use of scientific tools in policy.

AB - It is widely assumed that the more certain and precise the scientific knowledge-base for predicting and understanding climate change, the better defined and robust will be the policy measures undertaken in response. In this paper we argue to the contrary that in the case of Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) ambiguity in their precise meaning is a major reason why they have been developed and continue as scientific policy tools [although this is not how they are commonly represented in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)]. We survey and analyse the range of opinion on GWPs with respect to their scientific stability and comprehensiveness and argue that the utility of GWPs has to be evaluated in terms of their symbolic, interactional and heuristic effects as well as with respect to their direct instrumental uses. In addition, we argue that scientific discussion of GWPs commonly incorporates elements of the social and policy contexts of their application and provide several examples from detailed discussions at the IPCC. We endeavour to account for the ambiguous identity of GWPs and draw out several implications from the findings of the paper for the construction and use of scientific tools in policy.

KW - GWPs · Scientific ambiguity · International climate policymaking

U2 - 10.3354/cr0008089

DO - 10.3354/cr0008089

M3 - Journal article

VL - 8

SP - 89

EP - 106

JO - Climate Research

JF - Climate Research

SN - 0936-577X

IS - 2

ER -