liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Hansson, Anders
Publications (10 of 30) Show all publications
Hallgren, A. & Hansson, A. (2019). Deep Sea Mining. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Deep Sea Mining
2019 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This brief is based on a literature review conducted by Axel Hallgren at Linköping University that maps ongoing deep sea mining (DSM) research, scientific debates and controversies and synthesizes major narratives in the field. The brief will first contextualize DSM, pinpoint a few significant challenges, and continue with a short description of the targeted mineral resources. The discussion that follows hone in on a few governance challenges that emanate from the aspirations to achieve an equitable distribution of mining revenues and the lack of scientific knowledge, and the inherently unmanageable task to draft a legitimate regulatory system for the governance of the global and currently uncharted deep sea bed in merely a few years. The brief rounds off by highlighting a few avenues for topical social scientific research.      

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2019. p. 14
Series
CSPR Briefing ; 2019:1
Keywords
deep sea mining, geopolitics
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-161656 (URN)
Funder
Mistra - The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research
Available from: 2019-11-05 Created: 2019-11-05 Last updated: 2019-11-05Bibliographically approved
Haikola, S., Hansson, A. & Anshelm, J. (2019). From polarization to reluctant acceptance: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 16(1), 45-69
Open this publication in new window or tab >>From polarization to reluctant acceptance: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate
2019 (English)In: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, ISSN 1943-815X, E-ISSN 1943-8168, Vol. 16, no 1, p. 45-69Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2019
Keywords
BECCS, the IPCC, climate science debate, Paris agreement, climate politics, post-normal science
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Economic Information Systems
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-155722 (URN)10.1080/1943815X.2019.1579740 (DOI)000466110800001 ()
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-00958Swedish Research Council, 2016-06359
Note

Funding agencies: Svenska Forskningsradet Formas [2016-00958]; Vetenskapsradet [2016-06359]

Available from: 2019-03-25 Created: 2019-03-25 Last updated: 2019-09-24Bibliographically approved
Haikola, S., Hansson, A. & Fridahl, M. (2019). Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain: Expert understandings of epistemological uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies, 114(102472)
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain: Expert understandings of epistemological uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
2019 (English)In: Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies, ISSN 0016-3287, E-ISSN 1873-6378, Vol. 114, no 102472Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has recently risen to international prominence due to its modelled potential to allow a mid-term temperature overshoot compensated by large, long-term removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The technology, however, is far from commercial. Therefore, BECCS is a suitable entry point for exploring how modellers identify, manage and communicate uncertainties. By applying framing analysis to 21 interviews with researchers working directly or closely with integrated assessment models (IAMs), three prevalent cognitive frames are identified: Climate scenarios as (1) talking points to discuss possible futures, (2) fundamentally political prescriptions that foreclose alternatives, and (3) distortions of pure science. The discourse around IAMs has entered a phase of critical reflection about their performative, political dimensions, both inside and outside of the IA modelling community. This phase is marked by modellers grappling with the responsibilities that are perceived to come with simultaneously providing maps of possible futures and standards by which these maps are to be evaluated.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2019
Keywords
Integrated assessment models (IAMs); Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), Uncertainty, Responsibility, Science communication, Framing
National Category
Environmental Management
Research subject
Economic Information Systems
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-161263 (URN)10.1016/j.futures.2019.102472 (DOI)000498327200008 ()2-s2.0-85073508605 (Scopus ID)
Projects
LUNETs
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-00958, 2012-705Swedish Research Council, 2016-06359
Note

Funding agencies: Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial PlanningSwedish Research Council Formas [2016-00958, 2012-705]; Swedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council [2016-06359]

Available from: 2019-10-25 Created: 2019-10-25 Last updated: 2019-12-09Bibliographically approved
Hansson, A., Fridahl, M., Haikola, S., Pius, Y., Pauline, N. & Mabhuye, E. (2019). Preconditions for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Tanzania. Environment, Development and Sustainability
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Preconditions for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Tanzania
Show others...
2019 (English)In: Environment, Development and Sustainability, ISSN 1387-585X, E-ISSN 1573-2975Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Most mitigation scenarios compatible with a likely change of holding global warming well below 2 °C rely on negative emissions technologies (NETs). According to the integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to produce mitigation scenarios for the IPCC reports, the NET with the greatest potential to achieve negative emissions is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Crucial questions arise about where the enormous quantities of biomass needed according to the IAM scenarios could feasibly be produced in a sustainable manner. Africa is attractive in the context of BECCS because of large areas that could contribute biomass energy and indications of substantial underground  CO2 storage capacities. However, estimates of large biomass availability in Africa are usually based on highly aggregated datasets, and only a few studies explore future challenges or barriers for BECCS in any detail. Based on previous research and literature, this paper analyses the pre-conditions for BECCS in Tanzania by studying what we argue are the applications of BECCS, or the components of the BECCS chain, that are most feasible in the country, namely (1) as applied to domestic sugarcane-based energy production (bioethanol), and (2) with Tanzania in a producer and re-growth role in an international BECCS chain, supplying biomass or biofuels for export to developed countries. The review reveals that a prerequisite for both options is either the existence of a functional market for emissions trading and selling, making negative emissions a viable commercial investment, or sustained investment through aid programmes. Also, historically, an important barrier to the development of production capacity of liquid biofuels for export purposes has been given by ethical dilemmas following in the wake of demand for land to facilitate production of biomass, such as sugarcane and jatropha. In these cases, conflicts over access to land and mismanagement have been more of a rule than an exception. Increased production volumes of solid biomass for export to operations that demand bioenergy, be it with or without a CCS component, is likely to give rise to similar conflicts. While BECCS may well play an important role in reducing emissions in countries with high capacity to act combined with existing large point sources of biogenic  CO2 emissions, it seems prudent to proceed with utmost caution when implicating BECCS deployment in least developed countries, like Tanzania.The paper argues that negative BECCS-related emissions from Tanzania should not be assumed in global climate mitigation scenarios.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2019
Keywords
Tanzania, Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, BECCS, Negative emissions, Bioenergy, Biomass, Climate change, Least developed countries
National Category
Environmental Management
Research subject
Economic Information Systems
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-162221 (URN)10.1007/s10668-019-00517-y (DOI)000497834600001 ()2-s2.0-85075349797 (Scopus ID)
Projects
LUNETs
Note

Funding agencies: Linkoping University; Swedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council; Sida through the Swedish Governments development aid funds; Formas and Fortes research appropriations (Sustainability and Resilience - Tackling Climate and Environmental Changes) [201

Available from: 2019-11-25 Created: 2019-11-25 Last updated: 2019-12-09Bibliographically approved
Haikola, S., Hansson, A. & Fridahl, M. (2018). Views of BECCS among modelers and policymakers. In: Mathias Fridahl (Ed.), Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials to domestic realities (pp. 17-31). Brussels: Liberal European Forum
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Views of BECCS among modelers and policymakers
2018 (English)In: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials to domestic realities / [ed] Mathias Fridahl, Brussels: Liberal European Forum , 2018, p. 17-31Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Chapter 3 (“Views of BECCS Among Modelers and Policymakers”) moves from exploring the magnitude of BECCS deployment in climate scenarios to outlining caveats raised by modelers themselves. The chapter addresses how modelers navigate the landscape of political and academic pressures to deliver timely, insightful, and relevant policy advice despite inherent and crucial uncerttainties and increasing model complexity. Based on interviews with modelers, the chapter discusses perspectives on uncertainty, the communication of IAM results, and the models’ relationship to reality. The chapter also discuss views of BECCS among policymakers whom generally want to give relatively low priority to investments in BECCS. Failing to invest in the future delivery of BECCS, combined with today’s lack of mitigation ambition, limits future generations’ maneuvering room to resolve the climate crisis.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Brussels: Liberal European Forum, 2018
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-152663 (URN)9789187379475 (ISBN)
Available from: 2018-11-12 Created: 2018-11-12 Last updated: 2018-11-12Bibliographically approved
Hansson, A. & Anshelm, J. (2016). Has the grand idea of geoengineering as Plan B run out of steam?. The Anthropocene Review, 3(1), 64-74
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Has the grand idea of geoengineering as Plan B run out of steam?
2016 (English)In: The Anthropocene Review, ISSN 2053-0196, E-ISSN 2053-020X, Vol. 3, no 1, p. 64-74Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Paul Crutzen’s 2006 call for geoengineering research triggered public debate in the mass media of several countries. Since then, a common belief among numerous involved scientists has been that more geoengineering experimentation or research is needed and that geoengineering should be carefully considered in a precautionary way as an emergency option or ‘Plan B’. Despite the controversial potential of geoengineering in terms of mega-risks, ethical dilemmas and governance challenges, public geoengineering debate in the daily press from 2006 to 2013 was heavily dominated by accounts of scientists’ arguments for more geoengineering research or even deployment, only about 8% of mass media articles expressing criticism of geoengineering. However, based on a reading of 700 articles published worldwide in 2014 and 2015, we demonstrate a gradual shift in the coverage, and the daily press now primarily reports critical views of geoengineering technologies. The patterns outlined here point in the same direction: It seems as though the grand idea of geoengineering as Plan B is fading.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2016
Keywords
climate change, climate engineering, discourse analysis, geoengineering, mass media, public debate
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-122389 (URN)10.1177/2053019615614592 (DOI)000447102700005 ()
Projects
LUCE
Funder
Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, 2012-1838Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, 2012-725
Available from: 2015-10-30 Created: 2015-10-30 Last updated: 2020-03-02Bibliographically approved
Wibeck, V., Hansson, A., Himmelsbach, R., Fridahl, M., Linnér, B.-O. & Anshelm, J. (2016). Policy brief on climate engineering. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Policy brief on climate engineering
Show others...
2016 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Climate engineering (geoengineering) has been widely discussed as a potential instrument for curbing global warming if politics fails to deliver green house gas emission reductions. This debate has lost momentum over the last couple of years, but is now being renewed in the wake of the December 2015 Paris climate change agreement. Resurgent interest primarily stems from two elements of the Paris agreement. First, by defining the long term goal as “achiev[ing] a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases” instead of decarbonization, the agreement can be interpreted as providing leeway for climate engineering proposals. Second, the agreement formulated a temperature goal of “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”. In response, several scientists argued that these goals may require climate engineering.

As these discussions will affect the forthcoming review of pathways toward 1.5°C warming, this policy brief takes stock of climate engineering. It draws on the expertise of Linköping University’s Climate Engineering (LUCE) interdisciplinary research programme. The brief provides an overview of the status of academic debate on climate engineering regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS);  stratospheric aerosol injection; and mass media reporting and public engagement.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2016. p. 4
Series
CSPR Briefing ; 2016:15
National Category
Climate Research Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-126348 (URN)
Available from: 2016-03-22 Created: 2016-03-22 Last updated: 2017-03-06Bibliographically approved
Stigson, P., Haikola, S., Hansson, A. & Buhr, K. (2016). Prospects for Swedish acceptance of carbon dioxide storage in the Baltic Sea: Learning from other energy projects. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, 6(2), 188-196
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Prospects for Swedish acceptance of carbon dioxide storage in the Baltic Sea: Learning from other energy projects
2016 (English)In: Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, E-ISSN 2152-3878, Vol. 6, no 2, p. 188-196Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

As initiatives are taken in Sweden to evaluate the geological potential for carbon dioxide storage in the adjacent Baltic Sea, experiences from elsewhere may provide lessons about perceptions of and potential opposition toward carbon capture and storage (CCS). A comprehensive analysis of storage feasibility needs to include the issue of social acceptance. The knowledge of CCS is low in Sweden however and there are no Swedish CCS projects to learn from. This paper therefore draws on lessons from other large-scale energy projects that are embedded in similar Baltic Sea contexts to complement lessons on CCS acceptance provided in the literature. The aim of this study is to facilitate an understanding of acceptance of potential future CO2 storage initiatives in the Swedish Baltic Sea region and to analyze what contextual factors are likely to be determinative of the outcome of these and similar projects. The study identifies climate change as one such key contextual factor, which can often be used both to support and oppose a large-scale energy project. Furthermore, the study finds that there are perceptions of uncertainties regarding the regulatory framework that need to be ad-ressed in order to facilitate the planning of CCS projects in the region.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2016
Keywords
CCS, storage, acceptance, communication, policy, Baltic Sea
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-124556 (URN)10.1002/ghg.1585 (DOI)000374141500005 ()
Projects
BASTOR2
Note

Funding agencies: Foundation for IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute; Swedish Energy Agency; Elforsk; Global CCS Institute; SSAB; Jernkontoret; Swedish Petroleum Exploration; Cementa; Nordkalk; SMA Mineral; Minfo; Vattenfall; Fortum; Preem

Available from: 2016-02-03 Created: 2016-02-03 Last updated: 2018-01-10
Anshelm, J. & Hansson, A. (2015). Climate change and the convergence between ENGOs and business. In: Jonas Anshelm, Kajsa Ellegård, Jenny Palm, Harald Rohracher (Ed.), Socio-technical perspectives on sustainable energy systems: (pp. 285-306). Linköping: Linköping Unversity
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Climate change and the convergence between ENGOs and business
2015 (English)In: Socio-technical perspectives on sustainable energy systems / [ed] Jonas Anshelm, Kajsa Ellegård, Jenny Palm, Harald Rohracher, Linköping: Linköping Unversity , 2015, p. 285-306Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping Unversity, 2015
Series
Linköping studies in technology and social change ; 2
Keywords
Klimatförändringar, Klimatpolitik
National Category
Energy Systems
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-118929 (URN)978-91-7519-104-1 (ISBN)
Available from: 2015-06-05 Created: 2015-06-05 Last updated: 2015-06-23Bibliographically approved
Hansson, A., Rayner, S. & Wibeck, V. (2015). Climate engineering (1ed.). In: Karin Bäckstrand, Eva Lövbrand (Ed.), Research handbook on climate governance: (pp. 411-422). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Climate engineering
2015 (English)In: Research handbook on climate governance / [ed] Karin Bäckstrand, Eva Lövbrand, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, 1, p. 411-422Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015 Edition: 1
Keywords
climate engineering, geoengineering, governance, climate change, framing, Klimatförändringar, Miljöteknik
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-127153 (URN)9781783470594 (ISBN)
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 2012-1101Swedish Research Council Formas, 2012-725Swedish Research Council Formas, 2012-1838
Available from: 2016-04-15 Created: 2016-04-15 Last updated: 2018-01-10Bibliographically approved
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications