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

Direct link
BETA
Alternative names
Publications (10 of 32) Show all publications
Fridahl, M. (2019). Incitamentsstrukturer för bioenergi med koldioxidavskiljning och ‑lagring i Sverige och Europeiska unionen: Underlagsrapport till Klimatpolitiska vägvalsutredningen (M 2018:07).
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Incitamentsstrukturer för bioenergi med koldioxidavskiljning och ‑lagring i Sverige och Europeiska unionen: Underlagsrapport till Klimatpolitiska vägvalsutredningen (M 2018:07)
2019 (Swedish)Report (Other academic)
Publisher
p. 81
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-158631 (URN)
Available from: 2019-07-05 Created: 2019-07-05 Last updated: 2019-08-28Bibliographically 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
Fridahl, M. (2019). Pre- and post-Paris views on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (1ed.). In: Jose Carlos Magalhaes Pires and Ana Luisa da Cunha Goncalves (Ed.), Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage: Using Natural Resources for Sustainable Development (pp. 47-62). London: Elsevier
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Pre- and post-Paris views on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
2019 (English)In: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage: Using Natural Resources for Sustainable Development / [ed] Jose Carlos Magalhaes Pires and Ana Luisa da Cunha Goncalves, London: Elsevier, 2019, 1, p. 47-62Chapter in book (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The market potential of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) depends both on demand for and the cost of BECCS. In making investment decisions, capital as well as operational expenditure is weighed against potential revenues. As BECCS is providing no added value but mitigation, revenues are pending policy instruments capable of providing a market pull for BECCS or an ability to develop a premium market segment encouraging voluntary customer compensation. While the cost side of BECCS has been studied substantially, little is known of sociopolitical factors such as acceptance and political prioritization. This chapter explores questionnaire data from UN climate change conferences from before and after the conclusion of the Paris Agreement in 2015. A total of 2547 completed questionnaires are analyzed to explore if the views on BECCS as a mitigation technology has changed with increasing attention given to negative emission technologies following in the wake of the Paris Agreement. The chapter overall concludes that BECCS is prioritized low for investments both pre and post-Paris. Put in context of the lack of a global collective mitigation ambition, this is pointing toward a moral dilemma. The moral hazard of avoiding radical mitigation action today on the basis of trust in future deployment of BECCS is exacerbated if followed by a lack of interest in investing in BECCS.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
London: Elsevier, 2019 Edition: 1
National Category
Social Sciences Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-159832 (URN)10.1016/B978-0-12-816229-3.00003-X (DOI)9780128162293 (ISBN)9780128166000 (ISBN)
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-00958Swedish Energy Agency, 42390-1
Available from: 2019-08-23 Created: 2019-08-23 Last updated: 2019-08-23Bibliographically 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
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
Fridahl, M. (Ed.). (2018). Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials  to domestic realities. Brussels: European Liberal Forum
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials  to domestic realities
2018 (English)Collection (editor) (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This book explores the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in climate governance. It starts by discussing BECCS’ global mitigation potential, as depicted in the idealized world of climate scenarios. Chapter 2 shows that almost all climate scenarios compatible with the high likelihood of limiting global warming to 2°C deploy BECCS. While excluding BECCS from these models’ technology portfolios does not necessarily make 2°C compatible scenarios impossible, it does mean that the projected cost of meeting that goal increases. 

In this context, based on interviews with integrated assessment modelers, chapter 3 illustrates how the use of the word “projected” is deliberate and significant. The modelers insist that they are dealing with projections, not predictions. At the same time, this modesty is contrasted to a core willingness to wield political influence. 

Chapter 4, which applies a crude method to map European point sources of biogenic CO2, indicates that the scenarios for Europe can be associated with factual potentials. The European pulp and paper industry emitted approximately 60–66 Mt of biogenic CO2 in 2015. To a lesser extent, there is also potential to capture biogenic CO2 from the production of electricity, heat, and biofuels. 

While R&D into BECCS has previously been framed as a “slippery slope” triggering objectionable consequences, for example, concerning food security, chapter 5 argues that realizing BECCS should instead be seen as an uphill struggle. This conclusion gains support in chapter 6, which maps existing policy incentives for BECCS. This exercise reveals an almost complete lack of political initiatives to deploy BECCS, indicating that the climate scenarios’ large-scale xi  deployment of BECCS could be seen as detached from reality. 

The book ends with chapter 7, which illustrates how UN and Swedish climate policy objectives have indeed influenced companies to get involved in planning for negative emissions, but also shows how the lack of policy incentives has put “sticks in the wheel” when it comes to affirmative investment decisions. While some funding sources for R&D and capital expenditures are highlighted, the primary concern is the lack of market pull that would provide revenues to cover operational expenditures. 

This book highlights the many caveats involved in moving from the theoretical potentials identified at the global scale to economically viable potentials facing investors at the business scale. It concludes that overcoming the challenges associated with realizing the theoretical potentials will be daunting, a true uphill struggle. Yet, with appropriate policy incentives, BECCS may still come to play an important role in the struggle to limit global warming to well below 2°C.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Brussels: European Liberal Forum, 2018. p. 98
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-152553 (URN)9789187379475 (ISBN)
Available from: 2018-11-06 Created: 2018-11-06 Last updated: 2018-11-21Bibliographically 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
Amars, L., Fridahl, M., Hagemann, M., Röser, F. & Linnér, B.-O. (2017). 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...
2017 (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, 2017
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)000396617300006 ()
Funder
Swedish Energy Agency
Available from: 2016-04-01 Created: 2016-04-01 Last updated: 2020-02-24Bibliographically 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
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-1912-5538

Search in DiVA

Show all publications