Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning (CSPR) har genomfört en utvärdering av Linköpings universitets (LiU) klimatarbete. I de detta brief pekar vi på de mest akuta utmaningarna med nuvarande klimatarbete och presenterar fyra rekommendationer för hur LiU:s klimatarbete kan utformas i linje med dess vision om att bidra till en bättre värld (LiU:s vision 2030).  

Quantitative risk analysis has long underpinned public trust in experts who interpret and address environmental disputes. However, in the uncertain and complex context of responding to a changing climate, it has been argued that trust in scientific expertise must be warranted on norms other than experts’ competence in quantifying risk. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of solar geoengineering. Much like abrupt climate change, solar geoengineering involves potential nonlinear or threshold responses, where both the triggering points and the system’s reactions are poorly understood, leaving risks inadequately characterized. In this paper, we examine climate model experiments with solar geoengineering to understand how expertise is justified in the absence of reliable risk assessments. We argue that these experts enact a specific norm of competence, which holds that trust should be warranted not on their ability to quantify risk, but to render unknown unknowns into known unknowns.

The Swedish government's reform agenda for official development assistance (ODA) includes announcements of major changes in climate aid. The report discusses Sweden's climate aid profile in relation to global trends, evaluations and selected research. By directing a larger share of development aid to climate action, the reform agenda creates opportunities for Swedish influence on the international climate transition. At the same time, the new direction may jeopardize longstanding partnerships and diminish its position in climate diplomacy. One way forward is to build on established strengths and take the lead in the pursuit of transformative, catalytic and research-based climate aid.

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approaches are becoming increasingly central to visions of decarbonizing national economies. The past few years have seen an increasing number of countries committed to net-zero targets, preceded by a surge of modelled 1.5°C scenarios envisioning large-scale future CDR deployment. The prospect of CDR deployment raises new complex socio-ecological challenges, and presents new deep uncertainties. These complexities, challenges and uncertainties cannot be investigated using solely the techno-economic modelling and environmental risk-assessment methods that currently dominate the construction of policy-relevant knowledge on CDR. Social sciences and the humanities perspectives on CDR are often restricted to instrumental tasks such as investigating public acceptance, overcoming social resistance or supporting the development of integrated assessment models. There is a need for more diverse investigations of CDR which include not only environmental and techno-economic dimensions, but also explore key societal complexities, challenges and uncertainties. Against this backdrop, we call for submissions on CDR stemming from perspectives within the social sciences and humanities. We encourage novel empirical and theoretical contributions on:

– CDR-related policy design or analyses of recent policy developments at sub-national, national and international levels of governance, e.g., in context of climate targets and strategies, climate tipping points, mitigation deterrence or societal transformations.

– Construction of knowledge in scientific discourse, e.g., critical reflections on the scenario/pathway literature and integrated assessment modeling, science communications, IPCC processes or science-policy relations.

– Historical and contemporary experiences of CDR in different cultural, geographical and political contexts, e.g. case studies, experience from developing countries, equity and responsibility distribution in North-South relations or geopolitical implications.

– Political and public debates on or controversies over CDR, e.g. using discourse theory or critical science and technology studies (STS) to analyse mass media or social media, scientific trends, ideological connections to CDR or shifting power relations. 

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.

While carbon dioxide removal is indispensable in net-zero climate policy, incentives to deploy removals are limited. Swedish public support to biochar is one exception. This paper draws on the Swedish case to explore expectations put on biochar and the significance of public support for fulfilling these expectations. The analysis shows that biochar is expected to contribute to several environmental objectives. However, while biochar producers and users voice expectations on strengthening the multifunctionality of landscapes, e.g., improved ecosystem resilience and reduced nutrient run-off, the authorities rather narrowly direct attention to the stability of biochar as a carbon storage. Nevertheless, public support is contributing to a small but important protective space for biochar development through three channels: First, through investment grants, which are crucial for the emerging Swedish biochar production capacity. Second, through demand-pull created by municipalities that specify high environmental safeguards, which favours domestic production over import. Third, indirectly through support of production facilities that enable intermediary activities for gathering and sharing knowledge. However, while recent changes to EU state aid regulation may be a game-changer, EU has until now acted as a barrier to support to carbon dioxide removal. This socio-technical regime resistance, combined with a lack of jointly articulated expectations on biochar, appear to have been preventing deployment on more significant scale.

The gigantic volumes of carbon dioxide (CO2) removal likely needed to comply with the Paris Agreement beg the question of who should pay for the negative emissions. Incentivizing negative emissions is difficult, as it entails reversing the fiscal attractiveness associated with carbon taxes and emissions trading in favour of the more unattractive need to pay for removals. The inherent difficulty of funding global public goods associated with large private costs will make it hard for future governments to share this burden among themselves. We propose that this problem can be solved by a CO2 emitter liability operationalized through Atmospheric CO2 Removal Deposits (ACORDs). Anyone that emits fossil CO2 to the atmosphere would be obliged to finance the removal of at least as much CO2 from the atmosphere. Linking the liability to ACORDs acknowledges that a major part of the negative emissions needs to be made in the future. The emitters' financial deposits, including earnings, can be redeemed upon certified proof of removal. The ACORDs system would comply with the widely accepted principle of producer liability, i.e., that companies are responsible for the damage caused by their products. The system would also provide additional incentives to reduce emissions and an innovative funding source for coming generations to accomplish negative emissions. Furthermore, inequity and historical emissions can be addressed by gradually increasing overcompensation. The paper also includes a critical assessment of the basis of negative emissions, i.e., the need, the technologies and their potentials, the costs, and the required retention time.

The City of Stockholm aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2030 by compensating for residual emissions using bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Relying heavily on negative emissions to reach the target, the city's strategy presents an interesting case of net-zero climate policymaking. Based on the analysis of interviews, City Council debates, and policy documents, the Stockholm case underscores the importance of understanding municipal climate policy in a multi-level policy setting, where the ability to govern emissions varies heavily between sectors depending on politics and policy at other levels of governance. Both waste incineration and road transport are perceived to include hard-to-abate emissions in 2030, partly due to governance linkages involving regional, national, and EU-level governing bodies. The energy utility, Stockholm Exergi, plans to implement BECCS, with funding from the EU and other public and private sources, at a heat and power plant. The unique opportunity to use BECCS as part of the city's net-zero target has made it possible to advance the net-zero goal from 2040 to 2030. However, there are risks that relying on BECCS may muffle public debate on what constitutes residual emissions in the city, subsequently leading to smaller municipal investments in emission reductions. Additionally, there are risks that the schedule for implementing BECCS is overly optimistic, meaning goal fulfilment may be threatened. However, this risk is not isolated to BECCS; similar risks are associated with combining fossil fuels with CCS. We recommend that the city critically examines the residual emissions, considers separate targets instead of a net-zero goal, and conducts risk assessments of key mitigation technologies to maintain its status as climate policy forerunner.

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?

Soils require the application of biochar to improve degradation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects of a field experiment on soil organic matter (SOM), soil organic carbon (SOC), and soil moisture content in Karagwe, Tanzania. Seven years ago, a field experiment was conducted using a Latin rectangle design with four replications. The treatments included carbonization and sanitation (CaSa) and carbonization and standard compost (CaSt), which were compared to control Andosols (CoA). A total of 96 soil samples were collected to determine SOM, SOC, and soil moisture content. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance. The results showed that soil samples from the CaSa-treated soil had an increase in SOM content of 17.3%, an increase in stored SOC content of 10.0%, and an increase in soil moisture content of 6.3%. Compared with those in CoA, the CaSt-treated soil showed increases in SOM, SOC, and soil moisture of 14.4%, 8.4%, and 4.0%, respectively. Therefore, all treatments improved soil properties, with CaSa proving more effective in enhancing SOM, SOC, and soil moisture content compared to CaSt and CoA. In conclusion, CaSa is recommended for its sustainable ability to enhance Karagwean soil over time.