Boundary Work in IPCC's BECCS Debate
Imagine a technology that can simultaneously produce energy and remove carbon dioxide from our atmosphere—a silver bullet for climate change. This is exactly what Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) promises, making it a cornerstone of many climate models aiming to limit global warming to 1.5°C. But behind the scientific consensus lies a fascinating story of invisible boundaries being drawn between science and policy, between different disciplines, and between what counts as legitimate knowledge versus speculation. This is the untold story of how a concept called "boundary work" shapes which climate solutions we take seriously—and which we dismiss—through the most authoritative climate science body in the world: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
When the IPCC published its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) in 2018, it revealed that most pathways to achieving the Paris Agreement targets relied heavily on BECCS, with projections suggesting this technology would need to remove a staggering 550 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over the latter half of the century 1 .
These projections didn't emerge from thin air—they came from sophisticated computer models called Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that combine insights from economics, energy systems, and climate science. But how did these particular models gain such influence in shaping our climate future? And what happened when other scientists questioned their assumptions? The answers lie in a meticulous analysis of the IPCC's review process, where the very boundaries of scientific authority are negotiated behind the scenes 1 .
The World's Climate Science Authority
Integrated Assessment Models
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents an extraordinary global collaboration of scientists assessing climate change knowledge. Governed by principles mandating "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis" for scientific assessment, the IPCC operates under a specific directive to remain "neutral with respect to policy" while assessing "options for adaptation and mitigation" 1 . This delicate balancing act between scientific assessment and policy relevance forms the perfect breeding ground for boundary work—the rhetorical strategies used to distinguish between science and non-science, and between different types of scientific knowledge.
Integrated Assessment Models are sophisticated computer simulations that combine insights from climate science, economics, and energy systems to project future climate scenarios and the potential effectiveness of different mitigation strategies. These models have gained what researchers call "interpretative privilege" at the interface between climate science, economics, and policymaking 1 . In the context of climate mitigation, IAMs perform multi-criteria assessments of the economic value of various options to mitigate climate change, making them particularly influential in IPCC chapters dealing with mitigation solutions.
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage represents a two-for-one climate solution: energy production combined with carbon removal. The process involves growing biomass (plants, trees, agricultural waste), burning it to produce energy, capturing the carbon dioxide released during combustion, and permanently storing it deep underground 2 . When implemented at bioenergy facilities, BECCS can create net-negative emissions systems—meaning they remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they produce—making them particularly attractive for climate models needing to achieve rapid emission reductions 2 .
The BECCS process can occur through two main methods. Combustion burns biomass and captures carbon dioxide from the flue gas stream, which is then pressurized into a supercritical fluid for storage. Conversion takes biomass through digestion or fermentation to create biofuels, with the resulting CO2 similarly compressed and stored 2 . Facilities that can host BECCS technology include pulp and paper mills, bioethanol plants, and combined heat and power plants 2 .
The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report determined that carbon removal with BECCS would need to scale to between 30-780 billion tonnes globally within the century to remain below the 1.5°C climate target 2 . To put this staggering number in perspective, current global CO2 emissions are approximately 36 billion tonnes per year. Yet despite this ambitious vision, current deployment remains minimal—with less than 2 million tonnes of CO2 removed each year and fewer than 20 facilities in planning phases globally 2 .
Biomass Growth
Plants absorb CO₂Energy Production
Biomass converted to energyCarbon Capture
CO₂ captured from emissionsStorage
CO₂ stored undergroundThe concept of "boundary work" originated from sociologist Thomas Gieryn in 1983, referring to the rhetorical strategies used by scientists to create distinctions between science and non-science, often to maintain authority or exclude certain types of knowledge 1 . In the context of the IPCC, boundary work becomes particularly important because the organization must carefully navigate its mandate to be policy-relevant yet policy-neutral.
When it comes to BECCS, boundary work manifests in how IPCC authors respond to criticism about the heavy reliance on this technology in climate models.
Authors might employ several boundary work strategies:
Referring to a limited scope or capacity of the report to address all concerns
Hiding behind a restrictive mandate that prevents certain discussions
Defining what constitutes legitimate science worthy of inclusion
Relativizing uncertainties rather than fully addressing them 1
These strategies matter because they ultimately shape which climate solutions appear feasible and deserving of research funding and policy support. When certain technologies like BECCS become entrenched in models without adequate scrutiny, we risk locking ourselves into climate pathways that might prove unrealistic or have unintended consequences.
A team of researchers conducted a systematic analysis of all BECCS-related expert review comments and author responses on the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) 1 . This approach provided a rare window into the normally opaque process of scientific assessment and negotiation.
The team gathered all review comments and author responses related to BECCS from the second order draft of the SR1.5 report. The IPCC's review process includes multiple stages where experts from around the world can comment on draft reports, making it one of the most extensive peer-review processes in science.
Reviewers' criticisms were organized into thematic categories, including concerns about the technological feasibility of BECCS, its sustainability implications, the modeling assumptions, and the communication of uncertainties.
The researchers analyzed how IPCC authors responded to these criticisms, specifically looking for instances of boundary work—where authors used various rhetorical strategies to deflect, incorporate, or address criticisms.
The team identified patterns in how different types of criticisms were handled, noting which concerns were fully addressed versus which were deflected through boundary work.
This methodological approach treated the review process as a natural experiment in scientific negotiation, revealing how authority is maintained and challenged at the science-policy interface.
The analysis revealed several important findings about how boundary work operates within the IPCC and influences the representation of BECCS:
The SR1.5 authors demonstrated a significant degree of compliance with reviewer comments, but this compliance often came with qualifications. While many sections were revised to clarify uncertainties surrounding BECCS, the revisions typically didn't address the core concern expressed by many reviewers: that BECCS was being presented as a viable carbon removal technology at a massive scale despite significant uncertainties about its feasibility and sustainability 1 .
IPCC authors employed four primary boundary work strategies in responding to criticisms about BECCS:
| Strategy | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Limited Scope | Claiming report constraints prevent addressing certain issues | "This falls outside the scope of this chapter" |
| Restrictive Mandate | Invoking policy-neutrality to avoid policy-relevant critiques | "Our mandate prevents us from making policy prescriptions" |
| Defining Legitimate Science | Establishing what counts as valid evidence | "That critique is not based on modeling literature" |
| Uncertainty Relativization | Comparing uncertainties rather than addressing them directly | "All mitigation options face similar uncertainties" |
The analysis revealed a fundamental disagreement between reviewers and authors about how model results should be interpreted and communicated. Many reviewers expressed concern that the presentation of BECCS in draft reports implied greater feasibility and certainty than the evidence warranted, while authors defended their presentations as appropriately reflecting the model outputs 1 .
Perhaps most importantly, the boundary work observed in the responses tended to entrench rather than problematize the dominant framing of BECCS as a crucial climate solution. By deflecting certain types of criticisms through boundary work, the fundamental questions about the role of BECCS in climate mitigation pathways remained largely unaddressed 1 .
| Pathway Component | Scale/Scope | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon Removal Need | 260-1,080 gigatons (2020-2100) | Total carbon dioxide removal required in SR1.5 pathways |
| BECCS Contribution | ~550 gigatons on average | Accumulated removal expected from BECCS in latter half of century |
| Current Deployment | <2 million tonnes/year | Current scale of BECCS implementation globally |
| Facilities in Planning | <20 globally | Number of BECCS projects currently in development |
| IPCC Cost Estimate | $40-120 per ton of CO2 | Estimated cost range for BECCS implementation |
Researchers studying boundary work in climate science and policy interfaces rely on several key conceptual tools and data sources:
| Research Tool | Function | Application in BECCS Study |
|---|---|---|
| IPCC Review Archives | Provides raw data of reviewer comments and author responses | Enabled systematic analysis of how criticisms were addressed |
| Boundary Work Theory | Conceptual framework for identifying demarcation strategies | Helped categorize author response strategies |
| Integrated Assessment Model Documentation | Reveals assumptions and limitations in climate scenarios | Allowed assessment of how model limitations were communicated |
| Science & Technology Studies Concepts | Provides theoretical foundation for understanding science-policy interfaces | Informed interpretation of authority dynamics in IPCC processes |
The analysis of boundary work in the IPCC's review process of BECCS reveals a fascinating tension between scientific assessment and policy relevance. While the IPCC has made commendable efforts to increase transparency and interdisciplinary inclusion, the fundamental dynamics of how certain types of knowledge gain authority while others are excluded continue to shape our climate future in profound ways.
The heavy reliance on BECCS in climate models—and the boundary work that protects this reliance from certain types of criticism—has real-world consequences. It influences which technologies receive research funding, which solutions policymakers prioritize, and ultimately, how society allocates scarce resources in the race against climate change.
When Integrated Assessment Models gain "interpretative privilege" without adequate scrutiny of their assumptions, we risk developing climate strategies that may prove unrealistic or socially disruptive when implemented at scale.
This isn't to suggest that BECCS has no role in climate mitigation or that the IPCC has acted inappropriately. Rather, it highlights the need for greater transparency about assumptions and uncertainties in climate models, more inclusive processes for integrating diverse knowledge types, and healthier skepticism about technological silver bullets. As we move forward in our collective climate response, understanding the invisible boundaries drawn in scientific assessments becomes as important as understanding the climate science itself.
The challenge for future climate governance is to create processes that can acknowledge the necessary boundary work involved in scientific assessment while creating spaces for genuine dialogue across different knowledge systems. Only then can we develop climate solutions that are both scientifically rigorous and socially robust enough to meet the unprecedented challenge of climate change.