Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39233710›Full record

ArticleScience as culture2024

Biochar in the British print news media: an analysis of promissory discourse and the creation of expectations about carbon removal.

Brigitte Nerlich, Carol Morris, Catherine Price, Holly Harris

Abstract readNews
In one paragraph

Article in Science as culture, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Brigitte NerlichInstitute for Science and Society, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6617-7827
Carol MorrisSchool of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7723-5658
Catherine PriceSchool of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1846-5407
Holly HarrisSchool of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6135-6700

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biochar is amongst a growing suite of approaches developed to address the climate crisis by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; yet public awareness of biochar is low. In this situation, mass-media reporting plays an important role in making an issue public and in creating expectations about its risks and benefits. In British broadsheet newspapers, a promissory, future-oriented discourse on biochar has emerged that is rhetorically configured through, for example, evaluative adjectives, verbs, hyperbole, and allusions to literary and cultural symbols that confer a sense of mystique. Biochar is promoted as an almost magical fix, based on its ability to soak up and store carbon, improve soil health, increase crops yields, and reduce pollutants. Conversely, some of the possible negative aspects of biochar are couched in the form of sarcasm and parody, while others are made invisible. This sets biochar up as a moral good that the public ought to accept, rather than opening up a public debate about its risks and benefits. Engaging in a fine-grained rhetorical analysis of the way promises about biochar are constructed expands the methodological and empirical repertoire of the sociology of expectations and, in future, can be applied to the analysis of other emerging climate change technologies, especially those relating to carbon removal.

Indexed as

Biochargreenhouse gas removalhyberbolemediapromissory discourserhetorical analysis

Identifiers

PMID39233710
PMCPMC11371262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.