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

Direct link
BETA
Alternative names
Publications (10 of 26) Show all publications
Fridahl, M. & Lehtveer, M. (2018). Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers. Energy Research & Social Science, 42, 155-165
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers
2018 (English)In: Energy Research & Social Science, ISSN 2214-6296, E-ISSN 2214-6326, Vol. 42, p. 155-165Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Keeping global warming well below 2 °C entails radically transforming global energy production and use. However, one important mitigation option, the use of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), has so far received only limited attention as regards the sociopolitical preconditions for its deployment. Using questionnaire data from UN climate change conferences, this paper explores the influence of expertise, actor type, and origin on respondents’ a) preferences for investing in BECCS, b) views of the role of BECCS as a mitigation technology, globally and domestically, and c) assessment of possible domestic barriers to BECCS deployment. Non-parametric statistical analysis reveals the low priority assigned to investments in BECCS, the anticipated high political and social constraints on deployment, and a gap between its low perceived domestic potential to contribute to mitigation and a slightly higher perceived global potential. The most important foreseen deployment constraints are sociopolitical, which in turn influence the economic feasibility of BECCS. However, these constraints (e.g. lack of policy incentives and social acceptance) are poorly captured in climate scenarios, a mismatch indicating a need for both complemented model scenarios and further research into sociopolitical preconditions for BECCS.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2018
Keywords
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS); Drivers and barriers; Social acceptance; Political priority
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-148305 (URN)10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.019 (DOI)000439444400019 ()2-s2.0-85044601365 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Energy Agency, 42390-1Swedish Research Council, 2016-06359Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-00958
Available from: 2018-06-07 Created: 2018-06-07 Last updated: 2018-08-17Bibliographically approved
Friman (Fridahl), M. (2016). Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(2), 285-305
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change
2016 (English)In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 16, no 2, p. 285-305Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article explores strategies in consensus-making processes in international climate diplomacy. Specifically, it examines the consensus-making politics, in the case of negotiating historical responsibility within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In doing so, analytical concepts from the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe are utilized to look for rationales that underpin discursive structures as well as agreement. To conclude, three rationales have dealt with conflicts over historical responsibility. While the first rationale hid conflict behind interpretative flexibility, the second reverted to “reasoned consensus,” excluding perspectives commonly understood as political rather than scientific. The third rationale has enabled equivocal use of the concept of historical responsibility in several parallel discourses, yet negotiators still stumble on how to synthesize these with a potential to foster future, more policy-detailed, consensuses with higher legitimacy. Understanding the history and current situation of negotiations on historical responsibility from this perspective can help guide policy makers toward decisions that avoid old pitfalls and construct new rationales that generate a higher sense of legitimacy.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Netherlands, 2016
Keywords
Climate negotiations, Consensus, Legitimacy, Historical responsibility
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107221 (URN)10.1007/s10784-014-9258-1 (DOI)000372245400006 ()
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2011-779Swedish Energy Agency, P35462-2
Note

Funding agencies: Formas [2011-779]; Swedish Energy Agency [P35462-2]

Available from: 2014-06-09 Created: 2014-06-09 Last updated: 2018-06-27Bibliographically approved
Fridahl, M. & Linnér, B.-O. (2016). Perspectives on the Green Climate Fund: Possible compromises on capitalization and balanced allocation. Climate and Development, 8(2), 105-109
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Perspectives on the Green Climate Fund: Possible compromises on capitalization and balanced allocation
2016 (English)In: Climate and Development, ISSN 1756-5529, E-ISSN 1756-5537, Vol. 8, no 2, p. 105-109Article in journal, Editorial material (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

Finance is at the heart of UN climate diplomacy. Through the long-term finance pledge, developed countries have committed to mobilize USD 100 billion annually from 2020 onwards to support climate action in developing countries. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is also expected to become a key player in the climate finance landscape. This viewpoint presents the views of representatives of developed and developing countries’ governments on how the annual sum of USD 100 billion should be dispensed by the GCF, based on a survey conducted at the 2013 UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw. Respondents’ give their views on (1) the mitigation/adaptation ratio in GCF support and (2) the public/private ratio in financial sources. Respondents from developing countries would prefer to channel a substantially higher amount of the long-term finance pledge through the GCF. The extent to which the long-term finance pledge should be governed by the GCF is contentious, because governments pledge long-term finance without specifying the mitigation/adaptation ratio, whereas the GCF Board is tasked with balancing the allocation of its funds between adaptation and mitigation. This contention is fuelled by the fact that developing countries have a greater say in the allocation of funds from the GCF than from alternative sources of finance for the long-term finance pledge. We suggest that it is time to (1) reformulate the pledge to clarify its mitigation/adaptation ratio and (2) agree to definitions of key concepts such as “climate finance” and “private finance” to allow for more distinct negotiating positions on sources of finance.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2016
Keywords
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; the Green Climate Fund; the long-term finance pledge; adaptation; mitigation
National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-119080 (URN)10.1080/17565529.2015.1040368 (DOI)000372444500001 ()
Projects
GovNAMAs
Funder
Swedish Energy Agency
Available from: 2015-06-09 Created: 2015-06-09 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically 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
Amars, L., Mathias, F., Hagemann, M., Röser, F. & Linnér, B.-O. (2016). The transformational potential of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions in Tanzania: assessing the concept’s cultural legitimacy among stakeholders in the solar energy sector. Local Environment: the International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 22(1), 86-105
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The transformational potential of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions in Tanzania: assessing the concept’s cultural legitimacy among stakeholders in the solar energy sector
Show others...
2016 (English)In: Local Environment: the International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, ISSN 1354-9839, E-ISSN 1469-6711, Vol. 22, no 1, p. 86-105Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

While energy-sector emissions remain the biggest source of climate change, many least-developed countries still invest in fossil-fuel development paths. These countries generally have high levels of fossil fuel technology lock-in and low capacities to change, making the shift to sustainable energy difficult. Tanzania, a telling example, is projected to triple fossil-fuel power production in the next decade. This article assesses the potential to use internationally supported Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to develop solar energy in Tanzania and contribute to transformational change of the electricity supply system. By assessing the cultural legitimacy of NAMAs among key stakeholders in the solar energy sector, we analyse the conditions for successful uptake of the concept in (1) national political thought and institutional frameworks and (2) the solar energy niche. Interview data are analysed from a multi-level perspective on transition, focusing on its cultural dimension. Several framings undermining legitimacy are articulated, such as attaching low-actor credibility to responsible agencies and the concept’s poor fit with political priorities. Actors that discern opportunities for NAMAs could, however, draw on a framing of high commensurability between experienced social needs and opportunities to use NAMAs to address them through climate compatible development. This legitimises NAMAs and could challenge opposing framings.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2016
Keywords
Transformational change; sustainability; NAMAs; Tanzania; solar power; MLP
National Category
Energy Systems Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-126668 (URN)10.1080/13549839.2016.1161607 (DOI)
Funder
Swedish Energy Agency
Available from: 2016-04-01 Created: 2016-04-01 Last updated: 2018-03-19Bibliographically approved
Fridahl, M., Hagemann, M., Roeser, F. & Amars, L. (2015). A Comparison of Design and Support Priorities of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions. Journal of Environment and Development, 24(2), 237-264
Open this publication in new window or tab >>A Comparison of Design and Support Priorities of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions
2015 (English)In: Journal of Environment and Development, ISSN 1070-4965, E-ISSN 1552-5465, Vol. 24, no 2, p. 237-264Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In context of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, developing countries are asked to contribute to greenhouse gas control objectives by proposing so-called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Although the concept provides developing countries with complete flexibility to design NAMAs, a majority of proposals seek international support. This article improves our understanding of the matching of NAMA design and international support by exploring (mis-) alignment between support providers and NAMA developers prioritization for NAMAs. The article assesses survey responses from support providers in light of records of NAMAs. We conclude that there is a mismatch between support providers primary emphasis on systems for measuring emissions reductions and the lack of such provisions in existing NAMA proposals. Furthermore, sector preferences may create structural biases in NAMA support.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SAGE Publications (UK and US), 2015
Keywords
nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs); emission reductions; sustainable development; transformational change; UNFCCC
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-118975 (URN)10.1177/1070496515579124 (DOI)000354551600005 ()
Available from: 2015-06-08 Created: 2015-06-05 Last updated: 2017-12-04
Friman (Fridahl), M. & Hjerpe, M. (2015). Agreement, significance, and understandings of historical responsibility in climate change negotiations. Climate Policy, 15(3), 302-320
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Agreement, significance, and understandings of historical responsibility in climate change negotiations
2015 (English)In: Climate Policy, ISSN 1469-3062, E-ISSN 1752-7457, Vol. 15, no 3, p. 302-320Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

For over 20 years, Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change have struggled with the normative significance of history for the differentiation of responsibilities. Negotiations on ‘historical responsibility’ have been marked by considerable conflict between developed and developing countries. However, in 2010, the Parties acknowledged the concept in a consensus decision. This article analyses UN Climate Change Conference delegates' agreement with the decision, whether it reconciled conflict between interpretations of historical responsibility, and the significance that delegates ascribe to the decision for future agreements. The decision has not eliminated conflict between different interpretations. Delegates who understand historical responsibility as linking countries' historical contributions to climate change to their responsibilities to act agree more with the decision and foresee it having a stronger influence on future agreements than do those viewing the concept in more conceptual terms. The decision marks the start of negotiations concerning how rather than whether historical responsibility should guide operative text. This article demonstrates that (1) the divergent interpretations pose clear challenges for a necessary but demanding agreement on operationalization, and (2) focusing on an ambiguous version of proportionality between contribution to change and responsibility can become a first step for convergence between divergent positions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2015
Keywords
historical responsibility; equity; negotiations; Brazilian proposal; burden sharing; cumulative emissions
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-108530 (URN)10.1080/14693062.2014.916598 (DOI)000352898400002 ()
Available from: 2014-06-30 Created: 2014-06-30 Last updated: 2018-06-27
Fridahl, M. (2015). Konflikt mellan syd och nord. Världspolitikens Dagsfrågor, 7-8, 22-34
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Konflikt mellan syd och nord
2015 (Swedish)In: Världspolitikens Dagsfrågor, ISSN 0042-2754, Vol. 7-8, p. 22-34Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.)) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm, Sverige: Utrikespolitiska institutet, 2015
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-120531 (URN)
Available from: 2015-08-13 Created: 2015-08-13 Last updated: 2016-01-11Bibliographically approved
Fridahl, M. (2015). Mapping design and support priorities to flag structural biases. In: Xander van Tilburg, Lachlan Cameron and Natalie Harms (ECN Policy Studies), (Ed.), Annual Status Report on Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs): 2015 (pp. 47-49). Cologne and Patten: Ecofys and ECN
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Mapping design and support priorities to flag structural biases
2015 (English)In: Annual Status Report on Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs): 2015 / [ed] Xander van Tilburg, Lachlan Cameron and Natalie Harms (ECN Policy Studies),, Cologne and Patten: Ecofys and ECN , 2015, p. 47-49Chapter in book (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The great potential of NAMAs to move to implementing transformational change is promising. Developed countries’ support to developing countries is central to this task. The vague international consensus on NAMAs, resulting from different prioritisation of objectives for NAMAs among developed and developing countries is both a blessing and a curse. As discussed in Section 2.1 the flexibility of the NAMA concept encompasses a broad spectrum of potential actions but it also raises questions as to whether the priorities of donor institutions providing financial support to explicitly target NAMAs and NAMA design correspond to the challenges posed by spurring transformational change.

In a recently published article (Fridahl, Hagemann, Röser, & Amars, 2015) , we compare (mis)alignments in support providers’ priorities for NAMAs and actual NAMA designs.

Although the findings should not be overemphasised, lack of information impedes more authoritative statements, two warning flags were raised: 1) misalignment between the priorities of bilateral support providers and countries with a low capacity to act, and 2) the emphasis given by support providers to short timeframes and to measuring direct emission reductions, which can become an obstacle for spurring longer-term transformational change through NAMAs.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cologne and Patten: Ecofys and ECN, 2015
National Category
Political Science Other Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-122988 (URN)
Funder
Swedish Energy Agency
Available from: 2015-12-01 Created: 2015-12-01 Last updated: 2016-01-11Bibliographically approved
Cameron, L., Harms, N., van Tilburg, X., Gardiner, A., Fridahl, M., Davis, S., . . . Vener, J. (2015). NAMAs and INDCs: Interactions and opportunities. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety
Open this publication in new window or tab >>NAMAs and INDCs: Interactions and opportunities
Show others...
2015 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Countries representing more than 90 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and population have submitted intendednationally determined contributions (INDCs) in anticipation of the 21st COP in Paris. In parallel, developing countries are designing at least 152 nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) and 13 have secured implementation funding. Connecting these two concepts, more than a third of developing countries communicate a role for NAMAs in their INDCs. 

It is therefore vital to understand the potential role of NAMAs (here understood as specific actions) with respect to INDCs (which are often broader targets) and vice versa. This paper explores the links between NAMAs and INDCs with regard to various elements central to their implementation, including: access to finance; stakeholder engagement; sustainable development impacts; measurement, reporting and verification (MRV); and institutional frameworks.

To avoid delaying mitigation action any further, it is important to keep momentum behind NAMAs. They represent one of the few tools at our disposal for countries to undertake mitigation actions, be recognised for these efforts, and mobilise climate finance and investment. The skills and learning on NAMA development can be seen more fundamentally as capacity for the design of bottom-up actions. Attention should be paid now to ensure that this capacity is maintained in the future. To do this, continued attention must be paid to NAMAs in Paris, as a key implementation tool for INDCs and, therefore, a key element of the success of a new global climate agreement.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, 2015. p. 27
National Category
Information Systems, Social aspects Communication Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-122987 (URN)
Funder
Swedish Energy Agency
Available from: 2015-12-01 Created: 2015-12-01 Last updated: 2016-01-11Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-1912-5538

Search in DiVA

Show all publications