The paper covers the public debate on BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) between 2008 and 2018. Through a qualitative analysis of around 800 feature articles, editorials, and opinion pieces published in English, German, Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian in news media and debates sections of scientific media, we highlight conspicuous aspects of the debate and relate them to the theoretical concept of post-normal science. We find that the debate is characterized by an emphasis on values, scientific uncertainty and the integrity of science, premised on a pervading sense of urgency. To a significant extent, the debate can be understood as a “normal” view of science questioning what it perceives to be unscientific model-based climate scenarios, and the scenarios, in turn, can be seen as a response to post-normal circumstances. The urgency permeating the debate provides conditions for open debate about ethical and epistemological uncertainty. The debate goes through a period of polarization – corroborating findings from previous studies on the climate science debate after COP21 – between an intense critique of BECCS inclusion in climate scenarios and reluctant acceptance thereof. Towards the end of the studied period, emphasis shifts towards reluctant acceptance, indicating that post-normal debate may only occur as a temporary state always tending towards new consensus.

该论文涵盖了2008年至2018年之间有关BECCS（具有捕获和存储碳的生物能源）的公开辩论。通过定性分析以新闻，英语，德语，瑞典语，丹麦语和挪威语出版的大约800篇专题文章，社论和意见媒体和科学媒体的辩论部分，我们强调辩论的显着方面，并将它们与后师范大学科学的理论概念联系起来。我们发现，辩论的特点是在普遍的紧迫感的前提下，强调价值观，科学的不确定性和科学的完整性。在很大程度上，辩论可以理解为科学的“正常”观点，质疑它认为是不科学的基于模型的气候情景，而这些情景又可以看作是对正常后环境的回应。辩论的紧迫性为就伦理和认识论的不确定性进行公开辩论提供了条件。辩论经历了一个两极分化的时期-证实了先前在COP21之后关于气候科学辩论的研究结果-在对BECCS纳入气候情景的强烈批评与勉强接受之间。在研究期即将结束时，重点转向了勉强接受，这表明正常情况后的辩论可能仅在总是倾向于新共识的临时状态下发生。辩论经历了一个两极分化的时期-证实了先前在COP21之后关于气候科学辩论的研究结果-在对BECCS纳入气候情景的强烈批评与勉强接受之间。在研究期即将结束时，重点转向了勉强接受，这表明正常情况后的辩论可能仅在总是倾向于新共识的临时状态下发生。辩论经历了一个两极分化的时期-证实了在COP21之后有关气候科学辩论的先前研究结果-在对BECCS纳入气候情景的强烈批评与勉强接受之间。在研究期即将结束时，重点转向了勉强接受，这表明正常情况后的辩论可能仅在总是倾向于新共识的临时状态下发生。