liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Refine search result
12 1 - 50 of 71
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Amars, Latif
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Independent Climate Researcher, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Hagemann, Markus
    NewClimate Institute, Germany.
    Röser, Frauke
    NewClimate Institute, Germany.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    The transformational potential of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions in Tanzania: assessing the concept’s cultural legitimacy among stakeholders in the solar energy sector2017In: 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)
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 2.
    Arbman Hansing, Anton
    et al.
    Handelshögskolan i Stockholm.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    European and Swedish point sources of biogenic carbon dioxide2018In: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: from global potentials to domestic realities / [ed] Mathias Friman, Bryssel: European Liberal Forum , 2018, Vol. Sidorna 31-43, p. 31-43Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Acknowledging the climate scenarios’ future deployment of BECCS in Europe and modelers’ questions as to the feasibility of implementing the level of BECCS proposed in the scenarios, this chapter provides a crude estimate of?the existing European potential for BECCS.?This potential is estimated through mapping point sources of biogenic CO2 from three types of processes with particularly promising prospects for BECCS: production of paper and pulp, combined heat and power (CHP), and bioethanol. The production of pulp, paper, and paperboard (“pulp and paper” for short)?is very energy intensive and generates considerable CO2 emissions. Due to?improved energy efficiency and a switch from fossil fuels to in-house biomass-based fuels, a large proportion of these CO2 emissions are biogenic (Sun et al., 2018). This, in combination with the fact that the emissions are often concentrated in just a few large production plants, makes these industries promising for BECCS deployment.

  • 3.
    Bellamy, Rob
    et al.
    Department of Geography, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Lezaun, Javier
    Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
    Palmer, James
    School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom.
    Rodriguez, Emily
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Lefvert, Adrian
    KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Grönkvist, Stefan
    KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Haikola, Simon
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Incentivising bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) responsibly: Comparing stakeholder policy preferences in the United Kingdom and Sweden2021In: Environmental Science and Policy, ISSN 1462-9011, E-ISSN 1873-6416, Vol. 116, p. 47-55Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) plays a central role in scenario pathways that limit global warming in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Yet deliberate policy efforts to incentivise BECCS—whether through amending existing climate policies or introducing entirely new ones—remain rare. In this paper, we contend that BECCS must be incentivised responsibly, through policy-making processes which account for diverse and geographically varying societal values and interests. More specifically, we make the case for responsible incentivisation by undertaking a comparative analysis of stakeholder attitudes to four idealised policy scenarios for BECCS, including representatives of government, business, nongovernmental and academic communities, in the UK and Sweden. The scenarios were: business as usual; international policy reform; national BECCS policy; and national policy for negative emissions technologies. Based on our findings, we recommend that policymakers 1) recognise the need to develop new incentives and make enabling reforms to existing policy instruments; 2) consider the risk of mitigation deterrence in their real world (and not abstracted) contexts; 3) employ multi-instrument approaches to incentivisation that do not overly rely on carbon pricing or 4) force a choice between technology specific or technology neutral policies; and 5) attend to the diversity of stakeholder and wider public perspectives that will ultimately determine the success—or failure—of their policy designs.

  • 4.
    Bellamy, Rob
    et al.
    Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
    Geden, Oliver
    German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin, Germany.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Cox, Emily
    School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
    Palmer, James
    School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
    Editorial: Governing Carbon Dioxide Removal2021In: Frontiers in Climate, E-ISSN 2624-9553, Vol. 3, article id 816346Article in journal (Other academic)
    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 5.
    Bernardo, Carmela
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Automatic Control. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Wang, Lingfei
    Division of Decision and Control Systems, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Altafini, Claudio
    Linköping University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Automatic Control. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Quantifying leadership in climate negotiations: A social power game2023In: PNAS Nexus, E-ISSN 2752-6542, Vol. 2, no 11, article id pgad365Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    We consider complex multistage multiagent negotiation processes such as those occurring at climate conferences and ask ourselves how can an agent maximize its social power, intended as influence over the outcome of the negotiation. This question can be framed as a strategic game played over an opinion dynamics model, in which the action of an agent consists in stubbornly defending its own opinion. We show that for consensus-seeking opinion dynamics models in which the interaction weights are uniform, the optimal action obeys to an early mover advantage principle, i.e. the agents behaving stubbornly in the early phases of the negotiations achieve the highest social power. When looking at data collected from the climate change negotiations going on at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, we find evidence of the use of the early mover strategy. Furthermore, we show that the social powers computed through our model correlate very well with the perceived leadership roles assessed through independent survey data, especially when non-uniform weights incorporating economical and demographic factors are considered.

  • 6.
    Browne, Katherine
    et al.
    Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Dzebo, Adis
    Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Iacobuta, Gabriela
    German Institute of Development and Sustainability, Bonn, Germany.
    Faus Onbargi, Alexia
    German Institute of Development and Sustainability, Bonn, Germany.
    Shawoo, Zoha
    Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Dombrowsky, Ines
    German Institute of Development and Sustainability, Bonn, Germany.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Gottenhuber, Sara
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Persson, Åsa
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
    How does policy coherence shape effectiveness and inequality? Implications for sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda2023In: Sustainable Development, ISSN 0968-0802, E-ISSN 1099-1719, Vol. 31, no 5, p. 3161-3174Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    During the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, many promoted policy coherence as a key tool to ensure achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a way that “leaves no one behind.” Their argument assumed that coherent policymaking contributes to more effective policies and supports over-arching efforts to reduce inequality. As the 2030 Agenda reaches the halfway point, however, countries are falling short on many SDGs, particularly SDG 10 (reduce inequality). This study revisits the basic assumptions about policy coherence underpinning the SDGs. We systematically screened the peer-reviewed literature to identify 40 studies that provide evidence about whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality. We find that coherent policymaking did not help reduce inequality in a majority of cases and made it worse in several. Our findings challenge the narrative that coherence is a necessary pre-condition for progress on the SDGs for all people.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 7.
    Buhr, Katarina
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Roth, Susanna
    IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet, Stockholm.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Stigson, Peter
    IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet, Stockholm.
    Klimatlöftena efter Köpenhamn: Nationella utsläppsmål och handlingsplaner som grund för ett nytt klimatavtal2011Report (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
    Abstract [sv]

    Klimatmötet i Köpenhamn blev omskrivet som ett misslyckande då parterna inte lyckades ta fram ett avtal för att begränsa den globala uppvärmningen till +2°C. Mindre känt är att Köpenhamnsmötet också öppnade för en process där ländernas egna förslag på vad de är villiga att göra för klimatet utgör en viktig utgångspunkt för det fortsatta arbetet med att ta fram ett nytt internationellt klimatavtal.

    Länder uppmanades att skicka in icke-bindande målsättningar som  beskriver avseddabegränsningar av de egna växthusgasutsläppen fram till år 2020. Dessa egenförfattademålsättningar, som vi i den här rapporten kallar Köpenhamnslöftena, har inkluderats iklimatförhandlingarna inför nästa stora årliga konferens som hålls i sydafrikanska Durbani slutet av 2011.

    Köpenhamnslöftena är intressanta för alla som vill förstå den  internationella klimatpolitikensutveckling. I den här rapporten erbjuds en översikt av Köpenhamnslöftena baserad på aktuellforskning. Vilka olika slags löften har länderna angett och vad innebär de? Är dessa löftentillräckliga för att rädda klimatet och hur kan de komma att påverka samhällsekonomin?

    Studien ingår i projektet ”Jämförbarhet av nationella initiativ i en fragmenterad internationellklimatregim” som finansieras av Energimyndigheten.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Klimatlöftena efter Köpenhamn: Nationella utsläppsmål och handlingsplaner som grund för ett nytt klimatavtal
    Download (png)
    presentationsbild
  • 8.
    Buylova, Alexandra
    et al.
    Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Nasiritousi, Naghmeh
    Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; The Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Overland, Indra
    The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Oslo, Norway.
    Reischl, Gunilla
    The Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Climate action in the making: business and civil society views on the world’s first carbon border levy2022In: Climate Action, E-ISSN 2731-3263, Vol. 1, no 1, article id 17Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Carbon border levies have been suggested as an important tool for ramping up climate action. Such a levy is being negotiated as part of the EU’s Green Deal, with input from public consultations. The success of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will depend on its design and acceptance. While most analyses focus on resistance from the EU’s major external trade partners, this article analyses the views of non-state actors within the EU. Their views will be decisive for the cohesion and determination of the EU as the CBAM proposal encounters external resistance. Examining the views of European business and civil society organizations expressed by 276 respondents in the EU’s public consultation, we show that there is general support for CBAM but divergent views on its purpose and on what to do about the allocation of free allowances in the EU Emissions Trading System, sectoral coverage, exemptions for third countries, export rebates and emissions scope. The success and strength of CBAM will depend on whether the EU is able to resolve these design issues and reach compromises between the opposing views of business and civil society.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 9.
    Buylova, Alexandra
    et al.
    Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Swede.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Nasiritousi, Naghmeh
    Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, The Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Reischl, Gunilla
    The Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Cancel (Out) Emissions?: The Envisaged Role of Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies in Long-Term National Climate Strategies2021In: Frontiers in Climate, E-ISSN 2624-9553, Vol. 3, article id 675499Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) increasingly features in climate scenarios that hold global warming well below 2◦C by 2100. Given the continuous gap between climate mitigation pledges and the emission pathways that are aligned with achieving the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, we would expect countries to promote CDR in their long-term planning to achieve mid-century targets. Yet, countries may not consider it their responsibility to contribute to the global response to climate change using CDR. Thus, a study of the respective country’s long-term climate plans is both timely and vital. Such a study could reveal the pledged collective ambition, the contribution of CDR to the pledged ambition, and how the envisaged role of CDR is described by the different countries. This paper explores the long-term low emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) of countries in order to map the role of CDR in addressing climate change. We also supplement our examination of strategies with the opinions of climate experts. Based on an inductive coding of thematerial and a literature review, the analytical focus of the analysis includes CDR targets and planning, types of CDR, barriers and opportunities to CDR implementation, as well as international cooperation. Our study of 25 national LT-LEDS submitted to the UN or to the EU, as well as 23 interviews with climate experts, shows that national plans for CDR vary substantially across countries and are generally lacking in detail. The findings also demonstrate that CDR is perceived to be necessary and desirable for achieving mid-century climate goals, but also reveal variation in the intended role of CDR. We use an interpretive approach to outline three possible visions of CDR in climate action: as a panacea, as a necessary fallback and as a chimera. We conclude by discussing what our findings of the envisaged roles of CDR in addressing climate change mean for climate governance. This research thereby contributes to the literature on governing CDR with new comprehensive insights into the long-term climate strategies of countries.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 10.
    Cameron, Lachlan
    et al.
    Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
    Harms, Natalie
    Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
    van Tilburg, Xander
    Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
    Gardiner, Ann
    Ecofys, Germany.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Davis, Stacey
    Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP).
    Pitt, Hannah
    Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP).
    von Luepke, Heiner
    GIZ, Germany.
    Herrmann, Lisa
    GIZ, Germany.
    Zachow, Inga
    GIZ, Germany.
    Day, Thomas
    NewClimate Institute, Germany.
    Röser, Frauke
    NewClimate Institute, Germany.
    Levin, Kelly
    WRI, the USA.
    Vener, James
    UNDP.
    NAMAs and INDCs: Interactions and opportunities2015Report (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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 11.
    Eltigani, Amna
    et al.
    Leibniz Inst Vegetable & Ornamental Crops IGZ, Germany.
    Olsson, Alexander
    KTH Royal Inst Technol, Sweden.
    Krause, Ariane
    Leibniz Inst Vegetable & Ornamental Crops IGZ, Germany.
    Ernest, Baraka
    Univ Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Muhimbili Univ Hlth & Allied Sci, Tanzania.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Yanda, Pius
    Univ Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Exploring lessons from five years of biochar-producing cookstoves in the Kagera region, Tanzania2022In: Energy for Sustainable Development, ISSN 0973-0826, E-ISSN 2352-4669, Vol. 71, p. 141-150Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Biochar-producing cookstoves can supply fuel-efficient heat for cooking in developing countries. The produced biochar can be used as a soil amendment, providing a range of environmental and agronomic benefits and serve to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Despite these advantages, many stove initiatives have not been sustained in the long term, but very little attention has been devoted to understanding the reasons behind this. The present study contributes to filling this knowledge gap, by identifying key factors affecting the level of stove adoption and use, as well as biochar utilization. Based on a follow-up survey of 50 households in northwestern Tanzania that received microgasifier stoves in 2015, only 12 still made use of their stove 5 years later. One of the main reasons for this relates to the inadequate quality of stove material. Declining or inconsistent availability of feedstocks was also identified as a major challenge. Furthermore, the households generally did not embrace the idea of amending soils with biochar, due to a combination of local practices and perceptions, and a lack of education and awareness programs. We conclude that, under the conditions of the studied project, three factors are required to scale dissemination: improvement of the stove design, provision of training programs on biochar management and subsidies or microloans that would make more durable stoves affordable. Sustained stove deployment can only be achievable by institutionalizing financing structures that are independent from short-term grant-based initiatives.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 12.
    Ernest, Baraka
    et al.
    Department of Medical Botany, Plant Breeding, and Agronomy, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P.O Box 65001, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Eltigani, Amna
    Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), DE-14979, Großbeeren, Germany.
    Yanda, Pius Z.
    Institute of Resource Assessment & Centre for Climate Change Studies, University of Dar es Salaam, P.O Box 33453, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Evaluation of selected organic fertilizers on conditioning soil health of smallholder households in Karagwe, Northwestern Tanzania2024In: Heliyon, ISSN 2405-8440, article id e26059Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Soil management is a strategy for improving soil suffering from problems such as low pH, nutrient deficiency, and erosion. The study evaluated the effects of human urine (HU), biogas slurry (BS), standard compost (StC), animal manure (AM), and synthetic fertilizer (SF) in comparison with no soil fertility management (NFM) on soil pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), soil organic carbon (SOC), soil moisture content, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), and iron (Fe) in the Karagwe district, a Northwestern Tanzania. Four household farms representing each soil amendment type were selected for soil sampling. A total of 192 soil samples were collected and air-dried. After laboratory analysis, BS-enriched soil had the highest pH (6.558), CEC (23.945 cmol+/kg), SOC (5.573%), soil moisture (5.573%), N (0.497%), P (247.130 mg/kg), K (3.036 cmol+/kg), Ca (18.983 cmol+/kg), Mg (4.076 cmol+/kg), Na (2.960 cmol+/kg), and Cu (12.548 mg/kg). Similar soil properties were lower in NFM than in the other soils. The soil properties on the chosen farms did not differ significantly depending on the sampling zone for each organic fertilizer. Therefore, the result indicates that all evaluated organic fertilizers improved soil health compared to NFM, but BS and HU fertilizers led to relatively better soil health improvements than StC, AM, and SF.

  • 13.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials  to domestic realities2018Collection (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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: From global potentials to domestic realities
    Download (png)
    presentationsbild
  • 14.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Handel med utsläppskrediter inom ramen för Sveriges nationella och internationella klimatåtaganden2024Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Sveriges långsiktiga nationella klimatmål är ett av världens mest ambitiösa. Sverige ska nå noll nettoutsläpp av växthusgaser till år 2045. Det ska ske genom att minska utsläppen med minst 85 procent jämfört med 1990. Kvarvarande utsläpp ska kompenseras genom så kallade kompletterande åtgärder, både inhemska åtgärder och internationella klimatsinaster.

    På senare tid har regeringens intresse för internationella klimatinsatser ökat. En delförklaring kan vara att Sveriges ekonomi präglas av en mycket låg koldioxidintensitet. Sverige har en av världens mest klimateffektiva ekonomier, i paritet med Schweiz och Danmark (Gütschow och Pflüger, 2022). Den låga koldioxidintensiteten innebär att marginalkostnaden för klimatåtgärder inom Sveriges territorium i många fall är hög i jämförelse med andra länder. En annan förklaring bakom det svenska intresset för internationella klimatinsatser är Sveriges historiskt stora engagemang i internationell politik. Relativt storleken på Sveriges ekonomi har Sverige en lång historia av att vara världsledande inom klimatrelaterat bistånd och klimatfinansiering. En del av detta engagemang tar sig uttryck genom svenska statens satsningar på internationella klimatinsatser inom ramkonventionen om klimatförändringar. Satsningen består dels av klimatrelaterat bistånd, bilateralt liksom genom stora bidrag till multilaterala fonder som den globala miljöfonden, gröna klimatfonden och anpassningsfonden, dels av Energimyndighetens program för internationella klimatinsatser.

    Parisavtalets Artikel 6 reglerar hur stater kan samarbeta internationellt. Skärningspunkten mellan FN:s reglering av samarbeten under Artikel 6, Sveriges ambitioner inom kompletterande åtgärder för att uppfylla nationella klimatmål och EU:s begräsningar av det svenska handlingsutrymmet är komplex. Denna rapport syftar till att skapa underlag för att förstå om den svenska satsningen på Artikel 6 bidrar till möjligheten att nå de svenska klimatmålen. Rapporten försöker reda ut:

    1. I hur stor utsträckning kan Sverige använda Artikel 6 som kompletterande åtgärd för att nå Sveriges nationella klimatmål givet de begräsningar som ges av EU:s klimatpolitiska rättsakter?
    2. Hur påverkas utrymmet att använda Artikel 6 för att uppnå Sveriges nationella klimatmål av möjligheterna att använda andra kompletterande åtgärder för att uppfylla svenska åtaganden gentemot EU?
    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
    Download (png)
    presentationsbild
  • 15.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Incitamentsstrukturer för bioenergi med koldioxidavskiljning och ‑lagring i Sverige och Europeiska unionen: Underlagsrapport till Klimatpolitiska vägvalsutredningen (M 2018:07)2019Report (Other academic)
    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 16.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Klimatbistånd som finansieringskälla för utsläppshandel: Förutsättningar och fallgropar2023Report (Other academic)
  • 17.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Konflikt mellan syd och nord2015In: Världspolitikens Dagsfrågor, ISSN 0042-2754, Vol. 7-8, p. 22-34Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 18.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Mapping design and support priorities to flag structural biases2015In: 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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 19.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Pre- and post-Paris views on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage2019In: 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.

  • 20.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Bellamy, Rob
    University of Manchester.
    Multilevel policy incentives for BECCS in Sweden2018In: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: from global potentials to domestic realities / [ed] Mathias Friman, Bryssel: European Liberal Forum , 2018, Vol. Sidorna 57-67, p. 57-67Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Many have noted a lack of policy incentives for BECCS, from R&D to commercialization. That BECCS is unlikely to materialize without incentivization policy has been alluded to throughout this book. For example, the climate scenarios’ high level of BECCS deployment, discussed in chapter 2, is as much the result of assumed cost curves as of assumptions related to a continuously increasing carbon price. Real-world deployment, however, is currently close to nonexistent. At present, only a few pilot or demonstration projects exist. How might incentive structures be envisioned? Are existing climate policies likely to incentivize any BECCS development? Here, we explore such questions by mapping existing policy incentives for BECCS research, development,? demonstration, and diffusion (RDD&D). We do so by looking at a climate policy? frontrunner with exceptionally favorable potential for BECCS deployment: Sweden.

  • 21.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Bellamy, Rob
    The University of Manchester, Great Britain.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Haikola, Simon
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Mapping Multi-Level Policy Incentives for Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage in Sweden2020In: Frontiers in Climate, E-ISSN 2624-9553, Vol. 2, p. 1-25, article id 604787Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is considered a key mitigation technology in most 1.5–2.0°C compatible climate change mitigation scenarios. Nonetheless, examples of BECCS deployment are lacking internationally. It is widely acknowledged that widespread implementation of this technology requires strong policy enablers, and that such enablers are currently non-existent. However, the literature lacks a more structured assessment of the “incentive gap” between scenarios with substantive BECCS deployment and existing policy enablers to effectuate BECCS deployment. Sweden, a country with progressive climate policies and particularly good preconditions for BECCS, constitutes a relevant locus for such examinations. The paper asks to what extent and how existing UN, EU, and Swedish climate policy instruments incentivize BECCS research, development, demonstration, and deployment in Sweden. The analysis is followed by a tentative discussion of needs for policy reform to improve the effectiveness of climate policy in delivering BECCS. Drawing on a tripartite typology of policy instruments (economic, regulatory, and informational) and the ability of these instruments to create supply-push or demand-pull, the article finds that: (1) no instruments create a demand-pull to cover operational expenditure; (2) economic instruments provide partial support for research and the capital expenditure associated with demonstration, and; (3) regulatory instruments provide partial clarity on environmental safeguards and responsibilities. A few regulatory barriers also continue to counteract deployment. The article concludes that the existing policy mix requires considerable reform if BECCS is to contribute substantially to the Swedish target for net-zero emissions. Continued effort to dismantle regulatory barriers must be complemented with a strong demand-pull instrument that complements the current focus on supply-push incentives. If unreformed, the existing policy mix will most likely lead to substantial public expenditure on BECCS research, development, and demonstration without leading to any substantial deployment and diffusion.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 22.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Hagemann, Markus
    NewClimate Institute Climate Policy and Global Sustainab, Germany; University of Utrecht, Netherlands.
    Roeser, Frauke
    NewClimate Institute Climate Policy and Global Sustainab, Germany.
    Amars, Latif
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    A Comparison of Design and Support Priorities of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions2015In: Journal of Environment and Development, ISSN 1070-4965, E-ISSN 1552-5465, Vol. 24, no 2, p. 237-264Article in journal (Refereed)
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 23.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Haikola, Simon
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Rogers, Peter Msumali
    Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Biochar deployment drivers and barriers in least developed countries2021In: Handbook of climate change management: research, leadership, transformation / [ed] Walter Leal Filho, Johannes Luetz, Desalegu Ayal, Cham: Springer, 2021, p. 1-30Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Agriculture in the least developed countries (LDCs) is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Applying biochar to soils has been proposed as a solution, especially in the carbon-depleted and acid sub-Saharan soils. Correctly applied, biochar increases yield capacities, decreases contamination, and promotes resilience. Hope is that biochar will store atmospheric carbon in soils, thus generating negative emissions. Nonetheless, several goal conflicts may arise, for example, between the global aspirations to achieve negative carbon emissions and local sustainability. Using interviews, a survey, and field visits to biochar initiatives in Tanzania, this chapter explores deployment drivers and barriers in LDCs and their implications for biochar carbon removal in local contexts. As such, it seeks to address a gap in the literature on actual, opposed to hypothesized, engagement of biochar practitioners. The chapter concludes that the idea of carbon removal alone is unlikely to motivate widespread biochar deployment in LDCs. Optimization of carbon content and stability must be balanced against maximizing yields with minimum inputs. Tangible results drive deployment among smallholders and agricultural businesses alike, yet developing biochar systems is challenging due to their complexity and long lead times. Thus, while financing and external expertise are vital at the initial stages, education,  wareness, and persistent demonstration are key to sustained action.

  • 24.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Haikola, Simon
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Towards Indicators for a Negative Emissions Climate Stabilisation Index: Problems and Prospects2020In: Climate, E-ISSN 2225-1154, Vol. 8, no 6, article id 75Article, review/survey (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The incongruence between the United Nations objective to hold global warming well below 2 °C and the rate of global emission reductions has intensified interest in negative emissions. Previous research has explored several pros and cons of individual negative emissions technologies. Systematised approaches to comparing and prioritising among them are, however, largely lacking. In response to this gap in the literature, this article reviews the scientific literature on indicators for designing negative emissions climate stabilisation value indexes. An index typically provides summary measures of several components, often denoted indicators. Utilizing a narrative review methodology, the article derives five categories of indicators underpinned by overlapping and often mutually reinforcing environmental and socio-economic values. A list of 21 indicators are proposed to capture both positive and negative values associated with effectiveness, efficiency, scale, risk, and synergies. While discussing indicators capable of providing guidance on negative emissions is timely, given the emerging shift away from pure emission reduction targets towards net-zero targets, numerous complexities are involved in determining their relative values. The results herein serve to inform policy making on the prioritisation and incentivisation of negative emissions technologies capable of delivering on the new objectives, and the results highlight the many risks and uncertainties involved in such exercises. The article concludes that systematic research on the comparison of NETs is incomplete. An iterative, interdisciplinary research programme exploring such questions has the potential to be extremely rewarding

    Download full text (pdf)
    Fridahletal2020
  • 25.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Forum for Reforms, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability (Fores), Stockholm, Sweden.
    Lehtveer, Mariliis
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers2018In: Energy Research & Social Science, ISSN 2214-6296, E-ISSN 2214-6326, Vol. 42, p. 155-165Article in journal (Refereed)
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 26.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Objectives for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs): Moving from Mitigation to Sustainable Development for more Ambitious Climate Policy2015Conference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
    Abstract [en]

    he new global climate agreement due in Paris, late 2015, will most likely be the sum of envisioned, nationally determined, actions. The concept of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) was agreed in 2007 to incentivise developing countries to enhance the implementation of the Climate Convention. A strategic choice for the international policy makers is whether NAMAs should emphasize mitigation or if emission reductions can be a supplementary benefit of pursuing sustainable development objectives. The International Negotiations Survey at the UN Climate Change Conferences shows critical differences among developing and developed countries’ governmental representatives on the primary goal of NAMAs. Yet substantial overlaps exist, which allows for probing common ground to build agreement. There seems to be support for making mitigation a co-benefit of NAMAs. Doing so would take the negotiations toward a very explicit low-emission development trajectory focus for developing countries, which may result in a more effective treaty. It is imperative to stress that mitigation prospects alone will not sell NAMAs to decision makers in most developing countries; the possibility of attracting international financial support to nationally defined development opportunities, with ancillary mitigation benefits, on the contrary, can be sold politically. Greater adherence to a wider development focus of NAMAs, with sustainable development as primary objective and mitigation as co-benefit, may well stimulate broader participation and spur enhanced national ambitions for Paris.

  • 27.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research .
    Perspectives on the Green Climate Fund: Possible compromises on capitalization and balanced allocation2016In: Climate and Development, ISSN 1756-5529, E-ISSN 1756-5537, Vol. 8, no 2, p. 105-109Article in journal (Other academic)
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 28.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Lundberg, Liv
    RISE.
    Aktörspreferenser i design av ett stödsystem för bio-CCS2021Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Avskiljning och geologisk lagring av biogen koldioxid, bio-CCS, har succesivt fått en mer framskriven funktion i svensk klimatpolitik. Möjligheten att skapa kolsänkor genom bio-CCS gör att tekniken kan bidra till det svenska målet om noll nettoutsläpp av växthusgaser till 2045. Regeringen har gett Energimyndigheten i uppdrag att sjösätta ett stödsystem för bio-CCS med start 2022. Kunskapen om hur nyckelaktörer vill utforma stödsystemet är dock bristfällig. Sådan kunskap är central för att möjliggöra en proaktiv systemdesign som lockar till deltagande. Denna studie undersöker därför preferenser för systemdesign bland aktörer inom näringslivet, den nationella förvaltningen och politiken. Syftet är att identifiera dilemman och potentiella målkonflikter. Energimyndighetens uppdrag är begränsat till att utreda ett stödsystem baserat på omvända auktioner eller fasta ersättningsnivåer, vilket också utgör huvudfokus i denna rapport. Baserat på intervjuer med 40 respondenter syns konvergens kring att statligt stöd bör kanaliseras genom omvända auktioner. I jämförelse med fasta ersättningsnivåer skapar ett auktionssystem bättre förutsättningar för att vara samhällsekonomiskt effektivt och för att harmonisera med EU:s statsstödsregler. Denna studie pekar dock på flera auktionsdilemman och potentiella målkonflikter. Exempelvis måste auktionsvolymerna matchas med den tekniska potentialen bland intresserade företag, vilket är lättare sagt än gjort. Denna studie presenterar också argument för att begränsa auktionerna genom budget- snarare än volymtak och pekar på att företagens egna kostnadsuppskattningar i många fall är betydligt högre än vad som påvisats i tidigare studier. Flera potentiella målkonflikter har också identifierats vilka är beroende av hur målsättningen med det statliga stödet preciseras. En trolig politisk målsättning är att stödet ska skapa minusutsläpp för att bidra till att uppfylla svenska klimatmål. En sådan målsättning skulle kunna stå i konflikt mot stödmottagande företags ambition att engagera sig i marknader för minusutsläppskrediter. Hur stödsystemets målsättning preciseras är avgörande för möjligheterna att hitta kompletterande finansieringskällor.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Fridahl_Lundberg_Stödsystem_bio-CCS
  • 29.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Building legitimacy: consensus and conflict over historic responsibility for climate change2013In: Interpretive approaches to global climate governance: deconstructing the greenhouse / [ed] Chris Methmann, Delf Rothe and Benjamin Stephan, London and New York: Routledge, 2013, p. 217-231Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    During the past two decades, negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have been the central forum for the organization of global climate governance. However, when it comes to decision-making, the UNFCCC is indeed a rather odd bird in the UN family. The UNFCCC is an independent treaty body that entered into force in 1994 and has yet to adopt rules of procedure, especially with respect to the role and function of voting. In the absence of voting procedures, all decisions have required, if not unanimous agreement, at least consensus in that there are no declared objections (Depledge 2005).

    Depledge (2005) underscores that states’ understanding of UNFCCC consensuses as legitimate is particularly important: if the process fails to build consensuses that are judged as legitimate, UNFCCC outcomes are unlikely to be effectively implemented. In this connection, Hurd (1999) argues that there are three reasons for sovereign states to obey international law: coercion,  maximized selfinterests, and legitimacy. The first two have, according to Hurd, gained a disproportionate amount of attention in international relations studies. However, it no longer seems controversial to claim, with Hurd, that they are insufficient on their own (Okereke et al. 2009; Risse 2004).

    This chapter aims to account for and understand legitimacy, particularly in relation to consensus and conflict in negotiating historic responsibility under the UNFCCC. The case embodies a general principle in multilateral environmental negotiations, which differentiates responsibility based on contribution to a problem (Stone 2004). The long history of negotiating historic responsibility serves to account for and understand legitimacy in connection with consensus and conflict: while it has been endorsed by a number of consensuses, the question of how to operationalize the concept of historic responsibility has been subject to intense debate since the early 1990s (Friman and Linnér 2008).

    This contribution uses discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe to approach legitimacy. As indicated in the introduction to this book, Laclau’s and Mouffe’s discourse theory is in general agreement with the departure points for interpretative perspectives. How this position differs from other approaches will be exemplified by contrasting it with an understanding of legitimacy derived from Jürgen Habermas. Both of these theories approach legitimacy in procedural terms, which leads me to start this chapter by discussing definitions of legitimacy and rules of procedure under the UNFCCC. The chapter continues with discussing how this definition relates to the two theories and how they can be applied to the case of negotiations on historic responsibility. One of the four dominant interpretations of climate change (see Hulme 2009 and Chapter 1, this volume), the scientific, has played a particularly important role in building consensus on historic responsibility while avoiding to deal with core conflict. For a long time, this did not promote legitimacy. On the other hand, this chapter concludes that the capacity and consensuses built during the years of negotiating historic responsibility in scientific terms have now created a situation where negotiators may draw on the scientific understanding to explicate conflict in other areas, such as that of social change. How to treat this resurfacing conflict while building legitimacy is still an open question; the chapter ends by tentatively proposing a new long-term negotiating forum under the UNFCCC to deal with core questions on different understandings of responsibility, designed to use conflict to build legitimacy.

  • 30.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Consensus Building in UN Climate Negotiations: Science, Politics and Historic Responsibility2009In: 1st World Congress of Environmental History, 2009Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 31.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Norrköping, Sweden .
    Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change2016In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 16, no 2, p. 285-305Article in journal (Refereed)
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 32. Order onlineBuy this publication >>
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Historical responsibility: Assessing the past in international climate negotiations2013Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Assessments of the past are essential to the struggle over the right to define the normative position of history under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Despite this importance, attempts to analyze the use of history in this context are rare. This thesis aims to investigate how assessments of the past are used in UNFCCC negotiations on responsibilities to act, focusing on negotiations on historical responsibilities. The research questions concern how discourse on historical responsibility: 1) can be structured, 2) is influenced by UNFCCC negotiating practice, 3) has been structured in the UNFCCC, and 4) has enabled agreement despite considerable conflict. Official UNFCCC documentation between 1991 and 2011 was studied using discourse analysis. This study suggests: first, the UNFCCC discourse on historical responsibility conveys two main assessments—a proportional and a conceptual one—of how the past could be used to differentiate responsibilities to act. Second, the strong consensus focus necessitates rationales underlying an “agreeable history” that is neither too flexible, allowing arbitrariness, nor too rigid, reducing Parties’ likelihood of ratifying. Third, as the past evolves, new situations challenge discourse that potentially engages policy makers with a need to rearticulate history. Fourth, if the context changes, so may the importance ascribed to particular assessments of the past. If the stakes increase over time, even more effort is required to reach agreement, which simultaneously becomes more important in solving problems of common concern. Fifth, power seems difficult to circumvent, even by means of cleverly designed negotiating practice. If so, multilateral environmental negotiations could increase the legitimacy of outcomes among Parties in two principal ways: first, by identifying the core conflict that drives negotiations and, second, by evaluating how multilateral environmental negotiations handle conflict. Obscuring or ignoring conflict will likely only reduce the legitimacy of the negotiations. 

    List of papers
    1. Technology obscuring equity: historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Technology obscuring equity: historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations
    2008 (English)In: Climate Policy, ISSN 1469-3062, E-ISSN 1752-7457, Vol. 8, no 4, p. 339-354Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    According to the concept of historical responsibility, the commitments of individual countries to take action on climate change are distributed based on the relative effects of their past emissions as manifested in present climate change. Brazil presented a comprehensive version of the concept to pre-Kyoto negotiations in 1997. The ‘Brazilian proposal’ originally combined several justice principles; however, following referral to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, discussion soon became confined to technical calculations. This case illustrates how disparities in knowledge production and framing can influence the inclusiveness of negotiations. Southern participation in the policy process was restrained due to lack of scientific expertise on the part of Southern countries and due to the non-inclusive biophysical discourse traditionally preferred by Northern policy-makers. The historical responsibility issue became stranded on problems of how to correctly represent physical nature in climate models. This marginalized the original intention that equity should be the guiding principle of the North–South interaction, arguably undercutting a potential angle of approach to advance the climate change negotiations. The article concludes that in the interest of facilitating the North–South dialogue in climate change negotiations, any framing of historical responsibility that excludes equity needs to be redefined.

    Keywords
    Brazilian proposal, burden sharing, climate change, discourse, equity, historical responsibility, North–South
    National Category
    Natural Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-14986 (URN)10.3763/cpol.2007.0438 (DOI)
    Note

    Original publication: Mathias Friman and Björn-ola Linnér, Technology obscuring equity: historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations, 2008, Climate Policy, (8), 339-354.http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2007.0438. Copyright: Earthscan, http://www.earthscanjournals.com/

    Available from: 2008-10-06 Created: 2008-10-06 Last updated: 2018-06-27Bibliographically approved
    2. Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change
    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
    3. Historical responsibility for climate change: defining aspects
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Historical responsibility for climate change: defining aspects
    (English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Since 1990, the academic literature on historical responsibility for climate change has grown considerably. Over these years, the approaches to defining this responsibility have varied considerably. This article demonstrates how this variation can be explained with reference to combining various aspects in defining of historic contribution and responsibility without always explicating them. Scientific knowledge that takes choices among defining aspects for granted is likely to become a foundation for distrust, both within science and among negotiators under UNFCCC and elsewhere. On the other hand, for various reasons, not all choices can be explicated at all times. This article is intended to guide those who need to evaluate the assumptions underlying specific claims regarding historical responsibility. As such, the article aims to map, review, and analytically classify the academic literature on historic contributions to and responsibility for climate change into categories of defining aspects. One immediately policy--‐relevant conclusion emerges from this exercise: Coupled with negotiators’ highly divergent understandings of historical responsibility, the sheer number of defining aspects makes it virtually impossible to offer scientific advice without creating distrust in certain parts of the policy circle. This conclusion suggests that any scientific attempt to establish historical responsibility will have little relevance to actual policy unless policymakers first negotiate a clearer framework for its establishment.

    National Category
    Social Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-86869 (URN)
    Available from: 2013-01-07 Created: 2013-01-07 Last updated: 2013-01-29Bibliographically approved
    4. Building legitimacy: consensus and conflict over historic responsibility for climate change
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Building legitimacy: consensus and conflict over historic responsibility for climate change
    2013 (English)In: Interpretive approaches to global climate governance: deconstructing the greenhouse / [ed] Chris Methmann, Delf Rothe and Benjamin Stephan, London and New York: Routledge, 2013, p. 217-231Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    During the past two decades, negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have been the central forum for the organization of global climate governance. However, when it comes to decision-making, the UNFCCC is indeed a rather odd bird in the UN family. The UNFCCC is an independent treaty body that entered into force in 1994 and has yet to adopt rules of procedure, especially with respect to the role and function of voting. In the absence of voting procedures, all decisions have required, if not unanimous agreement, at least consensus in that there are no declared objections (Depledge 2005).

    Depledge (2005) underscores that states’ understanding of UNFCCC consensuses as legitimate is particularly important: if the process fails to build consensuses that are judged as legitimate, UNFCCC outcomes are unlikely to be effectively implemented. In this connection, Hurd (1999) argues that there are three reasons for sovereign states to obey international law: coercion,  maximized selfinterests, and legitimacy. The first two have, according to Hurd, gained a disproportionate amount of attention in international relations studies. However, it no longer seems controversial to claim, with Hurd, that they are insufficient on their own (Okereke et al. 2009; Risse 2004).

    This chapter aims to account for and understand legitimacy, particularly in relation to consensus and conflict in negotiating historic responsibility under the UNFCCC. The case embodies a general principle in multilateral environmental negotiations, which differentiates responsibility based on contribution to a problem (Stone 2004). The long history of negotiating historic responsibility serves to account for and understand legitimacy in connection with consensus and conflict: while it has been endorsed by a number of consensuses, the question of how to operationalize the concept of historic responsibility has been subject to intense debate since the early 1990s (Friman and Linnér 2008).

    This contribution uses discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe to approach legitimacy. As indicated in the introduction to this book, Laclau’s and Mouffe’s discourse theory is in general agreement with the departure points for interpretative perspectives. How this position differs from other approaches will be exemplified by contrasting it with an understanding of legitimacy derived from Jürgen Habermas. Both of these theories approach legitimacy in procedural terms, which leads me to start this chapter by discussing definitions of legitimacy and rules of procedure under the UNFCCC. The chapter continues with discussing how this definition relates to the two theories and how they can be applied to the case of negotiations on historic responsibility. One of the four dominant interpretations of climate change (see Hulme 2009 and Chapter 1, this volume), the scientific, has played a particularly important role in building consensus on historic responsibility while avoiding to deal with core conflict. For a long time, this did not promote legitimacy. On the other hand, this chapter concludes that the capacity and consensuses built during the years of negotiating historic responsibility in scientific terms have now created a situation where negotiators may draw on the scientific understanding to explicate conflict in other areas, such as that of social change. How to treat this resurfacing conflict while building legitimacy is still an open question; the chapter ends by tentatively proposing a new long-term negotiating forum under the UNFCCC to deal with core questions on different understandings of responsibility, designed to use conflict to build legitimacy.

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    London and New York: Routledge, 2013
    Keywords
    Climatic changes -- Government policy, Climate change mitigation -- International cooperation, Klimatpolitik
    National Category
    Social Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-86919 (URN)0-415-52188-2 (ISBN)978-0-415-52188-8 (ISBN)
    Available from: 2013-01-07 Created: 2013-01-07 Last updated: 2018-06-27Bibliographically approved
    5. Understanding Boundary Work through Discourse Theory: Inter/disciplines and Interdisciplinarity
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Understanding Boundary Work through Discourse Theory: Inter/disciplines and Interdisciplinarity
    2010 (English)In: Science Studies, ISSN 0786-3012, Vol. 23, no 2, p. 5-19Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    Interdisciplinarity is usually described as different from disciplinarity: a discipline is said to generate distinct boundaries, separating it from the undisciplined, while interdisciplinarity connotes the crossing of such boundaries. Less attention is paid to how boundary crossing itself creates new boundaries. This article asks how boundary work can be understood in theory and what this understanding means to academic debate on interdisciplinarity. From this perspective, there is reason to talk of interdisciplines conducting boundary work distinguishable by the fundamental logic guiding boundary creation. In this new approach, disciplinary logic distinguishes itself by promoting the monopolization of knowledge, whereas interdisciplinary logic fundamentally promotes plurality. As opposed to much use of the term “interdisciplinarity”, this version would be conceptually meaningful in relation to “disciplinarity”. Though boundary work following an anti-boundary logic might seem contradictory, this is not necessarily so: what is guarded in an interdiscipline could well be the possibility of permeability.

     

    Keywords
    boundary work; discourse; discipline; interdiscipline; interdisciplinarity
    National Category
    Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-62778 (URN)
    Funder
    Swedish Research Council Formas, 1700
    Available from: 2010-12-03 Created: 2010-12-03 Last updated: 2018-06-27
    Download full text (pdf)
    Historical responsibility: Assessing the past in international climate negotiations
    Download (pdf)
    omslag
  • 33.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Historical Responsibility in the UNFCCC2007Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report tracks the history of historical responsibility in negotiations to and under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The concept aims at attributing individual country burdens in mitigating climate change based on the relative levels of past emissions. A hermeneutic approach and discursive theory has been applied to the empirical material consisting of documents form the main bodies of the UNFCCC. The historic narrative constitutes a basis for an analysis of how the UNFCCC framing of historical responsibility have affected discussions on equity and inclusiveness across the North-South divide. Even though the concept was part of the discursive struggle over the content of the UNFCCC, it has been more central in the struggle to make the principles on equity, established in the Convention, operational. Historical responsibility has been most elaborated in a proposal by Brazil to the 1997 pre-Kyoto negotiations. This proposal combined a biophysical approach (preferred by the North) with that of a political economic approach (preferred by the South). However, the proposal was soon pushed off the central agenda and discussions on the topic turned technical and centred on scientific uncertainties. The biophysical framing excluded discussions on equity. As the proposal was marginalised within UNFCCC as a whole it became central in discussions on comprehensive approaches to historical responsibility. Any who wanted to discuss comprehensive approaches were referred to this forum wherein talks on equity were excluded by rules of discussion. This echoes a world system with a periphery in the global South dependent upon core countries in the global North. The last mentioned have the capacity to set the agenda. The resulting discursive rules, excluding talks on equity, have not been good to the inclusiveness of Southern participants in the discussion process nor favoured much needed dialogue across the North/South divide in climate change negotiations.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Historical Responsibilityin the UNFCCC
  • 34.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Understanding Boundary Work through Discourse Theory: Inter/disciplines and Interdisciplinarity2010In: Science Studies, ISSN 0786-3012, Vol. 23, no 2, p. 5-19Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Interdisciplinarity is usually described as different from disciplinarity: a discipline is said to generate distinct boundaries, separating it from the undisciplined, while interdisciplinarity connotes the crossing of such boundaries. Less attention is paid to how boundary crossing itself creates new boundaries. This article asks how boundary work can be understood in theory and what this understanding means to academic debate on interdisciplinarity. From this perspective, there is reason to talk of interdisciplines conducting boundary work distinguishable by the fundamental logic guiding boundary creation. In this new approach, disciplinary logic distinguishes itself by promoting the monopolization of knowledge, whereas interdisciplinary logic fundamentally promotes plurality. As opposed to much use of the term “interdisciplinarity”, this version would be conceptually meaningful in relation to “disciplinarity”. Though boundary work following an anti-boundary logic might seem contradictory, this is not necessarily so: what is guarded in an interdiscipline could well be the possibility of permeability.

     

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 35.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. SMHI, Sweden.
    Hjerpe, Mattias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. SMHI, Sweden.
    Agreement, significance, and understandings of historical responsibility in climate change negotiations2015In: Climate Policy, ISSN 1469-3062, E-ISSN 1752-7457, Vol. 15, no 3, p. 302-320Article in journal (Refereed)
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 36.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Getting the NAMA Registry’s flawed incentive structure right2014In: Annual Status Report on Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) 2014 / [ed] Xander van Tilburg and Shikha Bhasin, Petten and Cologne: ECN and Ecofys , 2014, , p. 41p. 32-33Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report is prepared and published as part of the MitigationMomentum project, a collaboration between ECN Policy Studies and Ecofys Germany. The project aims to support the development of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) by contributing to the concrete development of NAMA proposals, and foster cooperation and knowledge exchange within the NAMA community.

    The UNFCCC NAMA Registry will most likely become asidelined remnant in the future NAMA landscape unlessthe flawed incentive structure for making submissions isaddressed. The main disincentive for filing NAMAs in theRegistry is plain: its matching function is failing, so far.The potential of the Registry as a site of learning, trustbuilding and efficiency will be hard to realize withoutaddressing this disincentive.

    Here, we suggest ideas to actualize the Registry intoa central node for both matching NAMA proposalswith support and information sharing. We centre theargument on making the Registry a submission portalfor NAMAs seeking support. The suggestions imply anumber of consequential issues that we also outline inbrief.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 37.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Technologies confining equity: the case of historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations2006In: Technologies of Nature Politics, 2006, 2006Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The concept of historical responsibility aims at attributing individual country burdens in mitigating climate change based on the relative levels of past emissions. Brazil presented the first comprehensive version of the concept of historical responsibility before the pre Kyoto climate change negotiations in 1997. The -Brazilian proposal- combined retributive and distributive as well as inter- and intra-generational justice. However, the issue of historical responsibility very soon turned technical and was referred to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice. It illustrates how disparities in knowledge production influence the negotiations. The proposal was restrained in policy process due to lack of scientific expertise from Southern countries and due to non-inclusive discourse. The proposal stranded on problems of how to correctly represent physical nature in mathematical models, marginalising the original intentions of equity in relation to the North-South divide as well as to past and future generations thus undercutting a potential angle of approach for achieving good global governance. 

  • 38.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Linnér, Björn-ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Technology obscuring equity: historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations2008In: Climate Policy, ISSN 1469-3062, E-ISSN 1752-7457, Vol. 8, no 4, p. 339-354Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    According to the concept of historical responsibility, the commitments of individual countries to take action on climate change are distributed based on the relative effects of their past emissions as manifested in present climate change. Brazil presented a comprehensive version of the concept to pre-Kyoto negotiations in 1997. The ‘Brazilian proposal’ originally combined several justice principles; however, following referral to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, discussion soon became confined to technical calculations. This case illustrates how disparities in knowledge production and framing can influence the inclusiveness of negotiations. Southern participation in the policy process was restrained due to lack of scientific expertise on the part of Southern countries and due to the non-inclusive biophysical discourse traditionally preferred by Northern policy-makers. The historical responsibility issue became stranded on problems of how to correctly represent physical nature in climate models. This marginalized the original intention that equity should be the guiding principle of the North–South interaction, arguably undercutting a potential angle of approach to advance the climate change negotiations. The article concludes that in the interest of facilitating the North–South dialogue in climate change negotiations, any framing of historical responsibility that excludes equity needs to be redefined.

    Download full text (pdf)
    FULLTEXT01
  • 39.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Technology obscuring equity: the case of historical responsibility in UNFCCC2007Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Many of today's most pressing environmental problems share one important characteristic: they are cross-boundary, i.e., they disregard political and geographical borders. Obviously, this is challenging for several reasons. One is that present legal and political institutionshave no effective reach beyond the nation-state. The same is the case with most political authority. Furthermore, the border crossing character of many environmental problems is also ethically challenging. What is a fair distribution of the burdens required to mitigate and adapt to e.g., climate change, chemical pollution andover use of marine resources and/or to make society less vulnerable to its' consequences? And perhaps even more difficult: Who has theresponsibility to take action - those causing the problems or those inrisk to suffer from the devastating effects? The papers in this section are discussing environmental problems from such points of view as authority, responsibility and distributive justice. 

  • 40.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Technology obscuring equity: the case of historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations2007In: Authority, Responsibility and Justice in Environmental Politics: Papers from the 8. Nordic Environmental Social Science Research Conference June 18-20 2007. Workshop 1 / [ed] Inger Balberg and Hege Hofstad, Oslo: NIBR , 2007, p. 103-122Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    According to the concept of historical responsibility, the commitments of individual countries to mitigating climate change are distributed based on the relative effects of their past emissions as manifested in present climate change. Brazil presented a comprehensive version of the concept to pre-Kyoto negotiations in 1997. The “Brazilian proposal” originally combined several justice principles; however, following referral to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, discussion soon became technical. This case illustrates how disparities in knowledge production and framing can influence the inclusiveness of negotiations. Southern participation in the policy process was restrained due to lack of scientific expertise on the part of Southern countries and due to the non-inclusive biophysical discourse traditionally preferred by the North. The historical responsibility issue became stranded on problems of how correctly to represent physical nature in climate models. This marginalized the original intention that equity should be the guiding principle of the North−South interaction, arguably undercutting a potential angle of approach to advance the climate change negotiations.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Technology obscuring equity: the case of historical responsibility in UNFCCC negotiations
  • 41.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Strandberg, Gustav
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Rossby Centre, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute; Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Historical responsibility for climate change: science and the science-policy interface2014In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, ISSN 1757-7780, E-ISSN 1757-7799, Vol. 5, no 3, p. 297-316Article, review/survey (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Since 1990, the academic literature on historical responsibility (HR) for climate change has grown considerably. Over these years, the approaches to defining this responsibility have varied considerably. This article demonstrates how this variation can be explained by combining various defining aspects of historical contribution and responsibility. Scientific knowledge that takes for granted choices among defining aspects will likely become a basis for distrust within science, among negotiators under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and elsewhere. On the other hand, for various reasons, not all choices can be explicated at all times. In this article, we examine the full breadth of complexities involved in scientifically defining HR and discuss how these complexities have consequences for the science–policy interface concerning HR. To this end, we review and classify the academic literature on historical contributions to and responsibility for climate change into categories of defining aspects. One immediately policy-relevant conclusion emerges from this exercise: Coupled with negotiators’ highly divergent understandings of historical responsibility, the sheer number of defining aspects makes it virtually impossible to offer scientific advice without creating distrust in certain parts of the policy circle. This conclusion suggests that scientific attempts to narrow the options for policymakers will have little chance of succeeding unless policymakers first negotiate a clearer framework for historical responsibility.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 42.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Upadhyaya, Prabhat
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    A Phased Approach to Internationally Supported NAMAs2013In: Mitigation Talks, Vol. 3-4, no 4 & 1, p. 4p. 5-8Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 43.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Upadhyaya, Prabhat
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Supporting Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions through the Green Climate Fund: Governance capacities and challenges2014In: Proceedings of the Forum on Development and Mitigation, Cape Town 2014 / [ed] Jooste, Meagan, Emily Tyler, Kim Coetzee, Anya Boyd, and Michael Boulle, Cape Town: Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town , 2014, p. 65-77Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The Green Climate Fund (GCF), the new operating entity under the Financial Mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is emerging as an innovative multilateral climate finance institution. Among other things, it is commissioned to support developing countries’ project-based and programmatic pursuits to address climate change, including Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Promising as these ambitions may be, the GCF’s effectiveness in supporting NAMAs hinges on overcoming significant governance challenges. Using perspectives from international environmental law and governance literature, this paper identifies some crucial governance challenges and analyses the capacities granted to the GCF Board in dealing with them. Developed countries expect that support will lead to measured emissions reductions. Developing countries prefer stringent monitoring of support while hesitating to agree on internationally defined NAMA criteria. The GCF will struggle with this balancing act. Absence of concrete criteria for deciding on NAMA support may prompt potential funders to seek other channels for supporting NAMAs. On the other hand, too-rigid criteria may discourage developing countries from submitting NAMA proposals. For the GCF to be effective in incentivising development and diffusion of NAMAs, we argue that the contracting Parties to the Convention will have to forge an institution that has the capacity to balance diverging expectations on NAMAs. Our analysis indicates that the GCF Board has the governance capacity to efficiently deal with this challenging balancing act. Inability to exercise this capacity may result in establishing a strong empty shell for supporting NAMAs.

  • 44.
    Glaas, Erik
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Wilk, Julie
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Hjerpe, Mattias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Scientific Knowledge and knowledge production: How do different traditions inform climate science and policy research?2009Report (Other academic)
  • 45.
    Haikola, Simon
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain: Expert understandings of epistemological uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage2019In: Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies, ISSN 0016-3287, E-ISSN 1873-6378, Vol. 114, no 102472Article in journal (Refereed)
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 46.
    Haikola, Simon
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Hansson, Anders
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Views of BECCS among modelers and policymakers2018In: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: from global potentials to domestic realities / [ed] Mathias Fridahl, Brussels: Liberal European Forum , 2018, p. 17-29Chapter 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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Views of BECCS among modelers and policymakers
  • 47.
    Hansson, Anders
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Anshelm, Jonas
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Haikola, Simon
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Boundary Work and Interpretations in the IPCC Review Process of the Role of Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in Limiting Global Warming to 1.5°C2021In: Frontiers in Climate, ISSN 2624-9553, Vol. 3, article id 643224Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Paris Agreement-compatible emissions pathways produced by integrated assessment models (IAMs) often rely on large amounts of carbon dioxide removals, especially afforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). These pathways feature prominently in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to the extent that the IAMs have been granted an interpretative privilege at the interface between climate science, economics, and policymaking. The privilege extends to and influences climate governance, including governance of BECCS. This paper contributes to recent debates about the role of the IPCC, and its framing of BECCS, at the science-policy interface. By analyzing all BECCS-related expert review comments and author responses on the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, the paper shows that boundary work influences the representation of BECCS by authors referring to: (1) a limited scope or capacity; (2) a restrictive mandate; (3) what constitutes legitimate science, and; (4) relativizing uncertainties. The responses to the review comments indicate a significant degree of compliance on behalf of the authors. Yet, the revisions do not seem to go to the heart of the unease that runs through many of the reviewer comments, i.e., that BECCS seems to be presented as a viable CDR technology at grand scale. While several revisions serve to clarify uncertainties surrounding BECCS, some fundamental aspects of the critique are deflected, through the boundary work identified. What the analysis reveals, beyond a dissatisfaction among many reviewers with the focus on integrated assessment modeling, the associated pathway literature, and analysis of BECCS, is a disagreement about how model results should be interpreted and communicated. While acknowledging the herculean task of the IPCC and the efforts to improve the pathway literature that the SR1.5 triggered within the IAM communities, we argue that the identified boundary work also risks entrenching rather than problematize dominant framings of the feasibility of BECCS. Such entrenchment can counteract the ambition of opening up the scientific work of the IPCC to include more diversity in the process of drafting reports, and arguably also influence the governance of CDR.

    Download full text (pdf)
    Hanssonetal2021
  • 48.
    Hansson, Anders
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Anshelm, Jonas
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Haikola, Simon
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    The underworld of tomorrow? How subsurface carbon dioxide storage leaked out of the public debate2022In: Energy Research & Social Science, ISSN 2214-6296, E-ISSN 2214-6326, ISSN 2214-6296, Vol. 90, article id 102606Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This perspective paper illustrates that the critical debate regarding geological storage of carbon dioxide has been discursively marginalised in recent years. However, two crucial factors make it reasonable to assume that significant storage-related uncertainties and challenges still exist.

    Firstly, experiences of geological storage are primarily related to enhanced oil recovery. Secondly, recent assessments indicate a doubling of the required quantity compared to what was envisioned back in 2005. Therefore, there seems to be a contradiction: as the visions of geological carbon dioxide storage have grown increasingly ambitious, the risks and challenges associated with storage have been marginalised.

    The paper suggests geological storage should become a topic of concern for critical social science and concludes with a reflection on five tentative explanations to the discursive marginalisation: 1) Increasing experience and knowledge have resulted in reduced risks; 2) The climate crisis and urgency have supported a broader acceptance of controversial mitigation options; 3) A shifting focus from fossil fuels with CCS to bioenergy with CCS has introduced new and salient problems that make storage-related challenges seem relatively less significant; 4) Coupling CCS to bioenergy has disarmed critics that primarily argue against prolongation of the fossil fuel era, and finally 5) Familiarisation and normalisation processes.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 49.
    Hansson, Anders
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Haikola, Simon
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Pius, Yanda
    University of Dar es Salaam, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Pauline, Noah
    University of Dar es Salaam, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Mabhuye, Edmund
    University of Dar es Salaam, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Preconditions for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Tanzania2020In: Environment, Development and Sustainability, ISSN 1387-585X, E-ISSN 1573-2975, Vol. 22, p. 6851-6875Article in journal (Refereed)
    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.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
  • 50.
    Hansson, Anders
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Haikola, Simon
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Yanda, Pius
    University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Mabhuye, Edmund
    University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Pauline, Noah
    University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Biochar as multi-purpose sustainable technology: experiences from projects in Tanzania2021In: Environment, Development and Sustainability, ISSN 1387-585X, E-ISSN 1573-2975, Vol. 23, p. 5182-5214Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Biochar was recently included as a promising negative emissions technology (NET) in theSpecial Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C published by the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Unlike other NETs, it can potentially be used to mitigate global climatechange while adding to local resilience in countries highly exposed and sensitive toimpacts of climate change, such as least-developed countries (LDCs). The study is as anempirical contribution to the, as of yet, underdeveloped literature on deployment of negativeemissions technologies in LDCs in general and on biochar use in developing countriesand LDCs specifically. Nine historical and existing biochar projects in Tanzania aremapped in order to analyse problems, goals and common trade-offs associated with smalltomedium-scale biochar production in LDCs. The mapping is based on a literature anddocument study, interviews with project actors, and on-site visits to biochar projects during2019. The paper gives support to the observation made in the biochar literature thatwhile biochar has many potential socio-economic and environmental benefits, combiningthem in one single project is difficult. It is concluded that implementing biochar projects inTanzania will likely involve trade-offs between the development and subsistence strategiesand needs of local communities, the motivational forces of different project participants,and the uneven regulatory capacity of the state. We end by reflecting on the use of biocharprojects to offset carbon emissions made elsewhere.

    Download full text (pdf)
    fulltext
12 1 - 50 of 71
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf