CCL är på plats i Visby under årets upplaga av politikerveckan i Almedalen. Vi arrangerar ett flertal seminarier och samtal inom ramen för forskningsprogram som FairTrans och Navigate. Tematiken kretsar kring framtidens klimat- och miljöpolitik. Vi ställer breda frågor om hur Sverige ska kunna genomföra en rättvis omställning, vilken politik som behövs i skuggan av EU-valet samt mer specifika frågor om hur Sverige ska tackla extremväder i ett föränderligt klimat. På seminarierna diskuterar vi befintliga strategier och spanar in i framtiden med aktörer från politik, civilsamhälle, fackföreningar, myndigheter, näringsliv och forskning. Mer information om arrangemangen nedan.
Och nu då? Svensk miljöpolitik i skuggan av EU-valet
Inom forskningsprogrammet “Att navigera i det politiska landskapet: barriärer och synergier i strategier för klimat och biologisk mångfald” , kort Navigate, som finansieras av Naturvårdsverket (2022-00115) forskar vi på samtida och framtida strategier för att hantera sammanlänkade miljöproblem, framförallt utsläppsminskning och förlust av biologisk mångfald. Programmet syftar till att stärka kunskapen om hur strategier kan förbättras för att uppfylla miljömål och samtidigt undvika målkonflikter och främja synergier. Den 25 juni har vi bjudit in till rundabordssamtal för att diskutera framtidens svenska miljöpolitik i skuggan av EU-valet. Vi har bjudit in experter inom klimat- och miljöpolitik till ett samtal för att veta vad de vill se hända i politiken. Samtalet kommer användas som grund för vidare forskning i programmet.
Almedalsveckan hålls varje sommar i Almedalsparken i Visby på Gotland. Här samlas företrädare för intresseorganisationer och de svenska politiska partierna för att diskutera politik och samhällsfrågor.
Extrema klimathändelser – vilket klimatledarskap krävs?
Två seminarier arrangeras om extremväder och klimatledarskap tillsammans med Gabriele Messori, Professor i meteorologi vid Institutionen för geovetenskaper, Uppsala universitet. Klimatet förändras snabbt och extrema klimathändelser visar att det brådskar att ställa om och anpassa samhället men vilka åtgärder är mest effektiva, vilket ledarskap krävs?
Det första seminariet arrangerar vi tillsammans med Maria Ivansson från Klimatkommunerna. Vi har bjudit in politiker från fyra klimatkommuner för att diskutera lokalt klimatledarskap. Frågorna handlar om vilka utmaningarna är i respektive kommun, vilka åtgärder som planeras och vilka förbättringar som behövs.
Senare samma dag diskuterar vi extrema klimathändelser och klimatledarskap på nationell nivå med riksdagsledamöter från olika partier. Vi undrar vilken roll forskare och politiker ska ha i omställningen för att tackla extrema klimathändelser, vilka åtgärder som är effektiva samt hur begränsade resurser kan fördelas mellan insatser.
Klimatomställningen – hur gör vi den både rättvis och verksam?
Inom ramen för forskningsprogrammet FairTrans, som finansieras av Mistra, arrangerar CCL ytterligare ett seminarium i Almedalen. Temat är hur vi kan skapa en verksam och rättvis klimatpolitik för att genomföra klimatomställningen. Det finns mer och mer kunskap om hur styrmedel bör formuleras och paketeras för att klara klimatmålen, men frågan är vad styrmedelspaket bör innehålla för att uppnå en snabb och rättvis omställning. På seminariet presenteras de perspektiv och den samsyn som växer fram inom forskningsprogrammet FairTrans, som grund för en dialog mellan representanter från riksdagen, fackliga organisationer och civilsamhället.
Seminariet äger rum 26/6 kl. 10:55-11:45 på ”Stora scenen” på TCO-landet (Strandgatan 19). Länk till seminarium finns här.
Fler arrangemang kring klimatledarskap
Utöver de arrangemang vi anordnar, kommer CCL delta i ett flertal samtal och debatter som berör klimat, miljö, politik och vetenskap. Docent Mikael Karlsson kommer bland annat att medverka på följande:
IPCC:s senaste syntesrapport som släpptes i mars 2023, som är en summering av tidigare delrapporter sedan 2016, underströk behovet av att skyndsamt minska utsläppen för att begränsa den globala uppvärmningen till 1,5 °C. Så långt inget nytt. Däremot betonades tydligare än tidigare vikten av beteendemässiga förändringar för att i närtid minska utsläppen. En typ av åtgärder som lyfts fram fokuserar på “sufficiency”. Sufficiency, eller tillräcklighet, syftar till åtgärder som minskar efterfrågan på resurser och energi och beskrivs i rapporten som en viktig utsläppsminskande strategi.
Sufficiency-styrmedel definieras av IPCC som “a set of measures and daily practices that avoid demand for energy, materials, land and water while delivering human well-being for all within planetary boundaries”. Genom att begränsa efterfrågan på konsumtion och följaktligen produktion ämnar sådana styrmedel möjliggöra skyndsamma utsläppsminskningar i kombination med ett fokus på en rättvis fördelning av resurser. Tillräcklighet är avgörande i relation till den resursanvändning i rikare delar av världen som slukar mycket av det utsläppsutrymme som finns tillgängligt om vi ska nå Parisavtalet.
I ljuset av det fokus IPCC riktar åt sufficiency-styrmedel samlades ledande forskare, beslutsfattare, civilsamhällesrepresentanter och praktiker på Sufficiency Summit i Paris och Adelaide, Australien. Konferensen ämnade diskutera sufficiency inom olika sektorer, dess nuvarande roll i den internationella klimatpolitiken samt hinder för dess utbredning. Här kommer en redogörelse av de, enligt min uppfattning, mest spännande diskussionerna som fördes under konferensen.
Beteendeförändringar kräver styrmedel
Dr. Yamina Saheb, huvudförfattare till IPCC:s rapporter, inledde konferensen med att beskriva att definitionen av sufficiency bör ses som fyra kausalt relaterade delar där (1) styrmedel krävs för att möjliggöra och uppmuntra till minskad efterfrågan på (2) energi, material, land- och vattenanvändning och andra naturresurser (3) som samtidigt kan förbättra välmående, (4) inom ramen för de planetära gränserna. Sufficiency begränsas därmed inte till energisystemet, vilket varit i huvudsakligt fokus inom forskningslitteraturen. Fortsättningsvis bör sufficiency enligt definitionen inte leda till försämrat välmående på global nivå, snarare utjämna skillnader i konsumtion och resursanvändning.
Saheb betonade vikten av sufficiency-relaterade styrmedel för att minska de globala utsläppen, vilket enligt IPCC:s uträkningar har potentialen att minska utsläppen med över 50% inom flera sektorer jämfört med nuvarande policy-scenarios.
Samtidigt är sådana styrmedel frånvarande i IPCC:s egna utsläppsscenarios samt i länders nationellt fastställda bidrag. Saheb poängterade att även om sufficiency som begrepp uppmärksammas i rapporten återstår mycket arbete med att normalisera begreppet, inte minst inom politiken, där det föga förvånande alltjämt möter stort motstånd.
Bostäder i fokus
Sufficiency-orienterade styrmedel tillskrevs i syntesrapporten stor betydelse inom bostadssektorn. Professor David Ness från University of South Australia underströk den stora potentialen till utsläppsminskningar från bostäder och städer genom ett ökat fokus på sufficiency. Detta innebär enkelt utryckt att undvika behovet av material och energi genom att bygga om och rekonstruera, snarare än att bygga nya bostäder.
Inom bostadssektorn är sufficiency enligt IPCC den första ordningens strategi, följt av effektivisering och förnybar energi, för att minska energianvändningen och följaktligen klimatpåverkan från bostäder. Detta innebär att på ett så resurseffektivt som möjligt använda befintlig infrastruktur, men att effektivisering och förnybar energi bör användas vid nybyggnation. Ness fördelade sedan ordet till vad han beskrev som ”hjärnan bakom all bra klimatpolitik i Paris” – Paris stads chef för programmet för klimatomställning, Yann Françoise.
Begrepet sufficiency härrör från det franska ordet sobriété, som översatt innebär ’nykterhet’ eller ’återhållsamhet’. Françoise menade att ordet bara för några år sedan var tabu att nämna i politiska kretsar, men att det nu blivit ett modeord – till och med Emmanuel Macron pratar nu om sobriété som en vital del i klimatomställningen. Frankrike har legat i framkant vad gäller sufficiency, där begreppet är centralt i landets lag för energiomställning från 2015. Samtidigt menar Françoise att lagen lägger ansvaret för sufficiency (dvs återhållsamhet i konsumtion) på individen, vilket bortser från behovet av strukturella förändringar för att möjliggöra sufficiency-relaterade beteenden. Detta anknyter till vad Saheb underströk – sufficiency är först och främst en politisk strategi där förändrade beteenden förutsätter styrmedel.
I Paris ämnar Françoise implementera sufficiency på just detta sätt. Staden och politiken ska möjliggöra återhållsamhet i folks dagliga konsumtion, inte förvänta sig det av dem givet dagens förutsättningar. Detta kan ske genom att skapa förutsättningar för alternativa transportmedel, såsom cykling och gång, stötta lokalt producerade livsmedel samtidigt som man tar bort subventioner till eller förbjuda klimatskadlig konsumtion, produktion och tjänster. Enligt egen utsago är Françoises viktigaste uppdrag att inrätta styrmedel som försvårar ohållbara beteenden och uppmuntrar till dess dito på ett, ur allmänhetens perspektiv, önskvärt sätt.
Politiker måste våga prata om produktionsvolymer
Ciaran Cuffe, ledamot i EU-parlamentet samt tidigare minister för hållbara transporter och planering i Irland, var ansvarig för EU-parlamentets förslag till revidering av EU:s byggnadsdirektiv och lade stort fokus på sufficiency i parlamentets förslag. Konceptet är nu för första gången på god väg att inkluderas i EU-lag. Även om det stundtals funnits ett motstånd mot konceptet menar Cuffe att EU-kommissionen, med Ursula von der Leyen i spetsen, hörsammat behovet av styrmedel som syftar till återhållsamhet och begränsningar.
Samtidigt associeras sufficiency ofta till försämrad livskvalitet och välfärd, enligt Costa Ines dos Santos, tidigare miljöminister i Portugal. Det är en utbredd uppfattning att begränsningar av konsumtion hämmar innovation, utveckling och folks levnadsstandard, vilket hon menar är en tankevurpa som förhindrar begreppets utbredning. Begränsningar bör snarare ses som en möjliggörare för innovation, där vi under ett begränsat utrymme baserat på planetära gränser kan sporra nya affärsidéer och mer hållbar produktion. Genom att formulera och kommunicera sufficiency som en möjliggörande strategi för näringslivet kan vi vinna argumentet om behovet av sufficiency, menar hon.
Sufficiency är alltjämt långt ifrån ett etablerat begrepp på den internationella politiska arenan. Dr Irene Maldinipå OsloMet University menar att problemformuleringen gällande produktionens klimatpåverkan ofta är tydlig; den höga produktionsvolymen i den rika delen av världen är ett problem. Samtidigt är lösningen sällan att begränsa produktionen, snarare göra den mer effektiv. Om vi fortsätter kringgå det direkta sambandet mellan problemet och lösningen, kommer sufficiency fortsätta befinna sig i utkanten av den politiska diskussionen och dess potential fortsatt vara underutnyttjad, enligt Maldini.
En framåtblick
Även om sufficiency må vara ett nytt modeord i det till synes aldrig sinande hållbarhetslingot så är det ett koncept med potentiell mobiliseringspotential. Det uppmärksammas inte bara av vetenskapen, utan verkar även väcka (om än begränsat) intresse inom politiken och näringslivet. Även om tillräcklighet och återhållsamhet vad gäller konsumtion varken ligger på många politikers läppar eller influerar individers konsumtionsbeteenden så knackar konceptet på den politiska och samhälleliga debattens dörr.
Tyvärr lades fokus under denna konferens övervägande på varför sufficiency är en nyckelstrategi för skyndsamma utsläppsminskningar, inte hur sufficiency kan normaliseras i den politiska diskussionen. Detta är ett återkommande problem även i den vetenskapliga litteraturen. Att ständigt ökande konsumtions- och produktionsvolymer är problematiskt ur ett klimatperspektiv har vi vetat länge – inte minst sedan Donella Meadows banbrytande bok om tillväxtens gränser. Men en reduktion av överflödig konsumtion lär knappast ske spontant, på basis av mer data eller genom en bättre förståelse för konsumtionens klimatpåverkan.
Jag tror att vi slösar värdefull omställningstid genom att undvika prata om hur sufficiency kan normaliseras i den politiska och samhälleliga debatten; under vilka förutsättningar är sufficiency-orienterade styrmedel ett relevant alternativ, givet dagens sociala, ekonomiska och politiska system? Vilka sociala och ekonomiska – utöver de uppenbara klimatmässiga – nyttor medför en sufficiency-orienterad politik? Och, inte minst, hur kan en sådan politik utformas och implementeras på ett sätt som gör det till ett önskvärt alternativ? Frågan är som Françoise träffsäkert poängterade – hur tar vi oss dit?
Förbehållet att sufficiency alltjämt är ett relativt nytt begrepp behöver forskningen ha ett starkare fokus på policy-relevanta ansatser där resultaten ämnar bidra till att stötta den politiska beslutsprocessen.
Forskningen bör söka svara på hur sufficiency-orienterade styrmedel kan utformas på ett sätt som gör dem önskvärda eller åtminstone acceptabla för allmänheten, civilsamhället, näringslivet och inte minst politiken. Däri ligger den stora utmaningen.
Klimatpolitiska beslut leder i regel till stora vinster för samhället utöver minskad klimatpåverkan. Minskad biltrafik och ökad cykling förbättrar folkhälsan till följd av minskade luftföroreningar. Förbättrad ekonomi, ökad sysselsättning och stärkt energisäkerhet är några andra exempel på dessa så kallade sidonyttor. Översätts dessa till monetära termer är vinsten enorm.
I en nyligen publicerad studie granskar vi hur sidonyttor av klimatpolitik bedömts i svensk politik. Vår genomgång av statliga utredningar och skattepolitiska beslut sedan 1990 visar att sidonyttor ofta utelämnas ur beräkningar. Detta får klimatpolitiken att framstå som dyrare än vad den egentligen är.
Att förbise sidonyttor leder till bristfälliga beslutsunderlag. Därför presenterar vi en rad förslag på hur den politiska beslutsprocessen kan förbättras för att möjliggöra att samhällsekonomiskt lönsamma beslut fattas. Sammantaget skulle dessa förslag synliggöra den ekonomiska vinsten av en mer ambitiös klimatpolitik. I en tid av ökad polarisering i klimatfrågan och turbulenta ekonomiska tider är det än mer viktigt att kommunicera och inkludera dessa sidonyttor i politiken, eftersom de skapar nyttor för gemene person här och nu.
As ever, the annual climate summit of the Conference of the Parties (COP) has centered on a few and highly conflictual issues. Most notably, loss and damage, and the financing of such, is for the first time included in the formal negotiations and highly advocated by low-income countries. Moving onto the final week of COP27, observers report that negotiations are moving ahead too slowly and too little, and that several knots need to be untied.
This year’s COP meeting in Sharm-El Sheikh in Egypt started per usual with heads of states convening for the World Leaders Summit. Joe Biden, encouraged by the midterm election results which soothed worries of US climate policy drawbacks, announced a new plan to cut methane emissions and supported the “Early Warnings for All Action Plan” drafted by the World Meteorological Organization. The plan aims at establishing warning signals for extreme weather and climate-related events, especially for the most vulnerable countries. French President Emmanuel Macron strongly emphasized the need for climate justice considerations in his speech and that “loss and damage” righteously should be discussed during the coming two weeks.
Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi, President of this year’s host country Egypt, has named this the “Implementation Summit”. He urged all parties to center their efforts towards implementing the rules agreed upon last year in COP26 in Glasgow.
Leading up to the summit, discussions were expected to concern financing and the previously precluded concept of “loss and damage”, as well as clean energy developments and climate adaptation. As expected, both formal negotiations and informal discussions have centered around these issues.
Money talks
Financing has been a cornerstone and stumbling block in the climate negotiations since the Paris Agreement in 2015. The failure to deliver the annual $100 billion by 2020, agreed upon in Copenhagen 2009, has come into light as poorer countries are increasingly devastated by extreme climate catastrophes. Such as the one in Pakistan earlier this year, leaving over 20 million people in need of humanitarian aid. The World Bank headed by president Malpass – who have been accused of climate denialism by former Vice President Al Gore – has come under increasing fire for insufficient climate financing as well as continued financial support to fossil fuel projects.
A partial success concerning climate finance from the first week was the tentative support for the “Bridgetown Agenda”, proposed by Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Mottley. The agenda seeks to reform the international financial system to ensure financial flows to low-income countries. It received support from French President Emmanuel Macron, with Germany and the UK tentatively supporting the idea. The Bretton Woods financial system managed by the World Bank and IMF is, according to Mottley, insufficiently structured to allow poorer countries to adapt to increasing climate-induced extreme weather events. With poorer countries being charged with substantially higher interest rates than the rich, Mottley argued that poorer countries should receive concessional lending, but also that discussions must include oil and gas companies, which in recent months have seen unprecedented windfall profits. “How do companies make $200 billion in profits in the last three months and do not expect to contribute $0.10 on every $1 of profit to a loss and damage fund?” she said. Success of the Bridgetown Agenda does, however, rely heavily on the support of the G7 countries who historically been reluctant to adopt concessional lending and debt cancellation policies.
US Climate Envoy John Kerry announced a plan to marshal investments in renewables in developing countries through a framework for carbon credits. The plan, dubbed the “Energy Transition Accelerator”, would allow private companies to gain carbon credits by investing in projects in developing countries. The initiative has not landed well amongst developing countries. Critics argue that another voluntary carbon market will neither instigate necessary deep emission reductions in richer countries nor ensure any additional funding – that would happen anyway – to clean energy developments.
Rich countries criticized for preventing loss and damage mechanism
The most contentious – but previously precluded from formal COP negotiations – issue is the financing of loss and damage arising from climate change calamities. Although discussions within the UNFCCC have been ongoing since COP19 with the establishment of the “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage”, strengthened at COP25 with the Santiago Network and with the Glasgow Dialogue at COP26, progress has been slow. Securing hands-on financing is not expected in Egypt, but emphasis is directed towards settling on the mechanisms of such funding. One week into the negotiations, however, a few countries have pledged to provide loss and damage money. Scotland broke the ice, followed by Denmark, Germany, Belgium Austria and New Zealand. More countries are expected to follow suit and pledge to the loss and damage fund in the second week of the summit, but sums are still far from adequate. Concerning the loss and damage mechanism, progress is even slower. Rich countries, especially the G7, have been accused of distracting from establishing a mechanism by proposing the alternative Global Shield insurance scheme, aimed at establishing a protection scheme to account for climate catastrophes. This has not landed well amongst poorer countries. It is perceived as a way of circumventing the loud calls for a loss and damage mechanism. The Global Shield insurance scheme does not include slow onset events brought about by climate change and includes only a fraction of countries in need of loss and damage money.
Demonstrations and fossil fuel delegates
A worry leading up to the summit in Egypt has concerned the role of civil society groups and activists. The Egyptian regime, with a record of human rights abuses and mass imprisonment of civil society actors, have come under critical scrutiny and commentators have warned of regressive restrictions. The currently imprisoned Egyptian human rights advocate Alaa Abd el-Fattah has become a figurehead of demonstrations and campaigns. Although attempts to raise human rights issues have been made and demonstrations have taken place, civil society organizations have been largely smothered.
If civil society action has been much curtailed during the first week, the oil and gas industry has not. With over 600 oil and gas representatives participating at the meeting, according to official registration lists, they outnumber all delegations from African countries.
What to expect from the final week of negotiations
Moving onto the second week, informal discussions will center around a few topics that traditionally fall outside the scope of the COP summits, beginning with water scarcity and gender issues on Monday. On Tuesday, attention will be directed towards the role of civil society. Discussions on Wednesday will raise to the fore biodiversity issues, paving way for the UN Biodiversity (COP15) starting on 7 December in Canada, ending with “solutions day” on Thursday where prospects for novel solutions such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and hydrogen centers on stage.
Turning to the formal negotiations, government ministers have replaced government leaders in the pursuit of untying the knots from the first week. The most pressing issue being the loss and damage funding, and whether the funding mechanism or the insurance scheme proposed by the G7 countries will prevail. How these negotiations end will much likely define whether COP27 will be seen as a step forward or not, especially concerning the contested issue of accountability.
A conference draft of formal agreements is expected on Wednesday, but a final draft is not expected until the end of the week. As last year’s COP focused on keeping the 1.5C target alive, a year later, that ambition looks even bleaker. In the run-up to the negotiations several reports concluded that the target is slipping away. That it is politically unfeasible to keep the 1.5C target alive and that there is “no longer any credible pathway” to achieving it. The last-minute calamities and weakened commitments in Glasgow made Alok Sharma, President of COP27, tearfully claim that the 1.5C target was, albeit barely, kept alive. Egypt’s COP27 President Sameh Shoukry will face a similar task.
The internationally recognised Zennström Professors in Climate Change Leadership work with academics, students, civil society and public and private partners to understand the scale of the transition needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and begin to develop routes towards these transitions. To date we have had four Zennström Professors.
STEFANIA BARCA – ZENNSTRÖM VISITING PROFESSOR 2021 – 2022
We are delighted to welcome Stefania Barca as our next Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership. Stefania is a scholar in Environmental Humanities, with a strong commitment to environmental and climate justice.
Stefania Barca Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadersship Foto Mikael Wallerstedt
During her time in Uppsala she will be building on the legacies left by the previous professors, as well as facilitating new initiatives around the Covid-19, climate and care nexus. In particular Stefania looks forward to actively contributing to the convergence of labour, feminist, youth and climate justice organisations towards a politics of Just Transition.
Stefania will begin her time in Uppsala with with a series of events with academics, practitioners and activists, exploring emergent themes stemming from such creative and participatory conversations. Her professorship will culminate in a conference on Just Transition in spring 2022, the first of this kind in Europe.
KERI FACER – ZENNSTRÖM VISITING PROFESSOR 2019–2020
Dr. Keri Facer, Professor of Educational and Social Futures
Keri Facer is Professor of Educational and Social Futures at the University of Bristol, School of Education. She works on rethinking the relationship between formal educational institutions and wider society and is particularly concerned with the sorts of knowledge that may be needed to address contemporary environmental, economic, social, and technological changes.
Since 2013, Keri has been Leadership Fellow for the RCUK Connected Communities Programme. This research programme is creating new relationships between communities and universities, drawing on arts and humanities perspectives and methods to enable new forms of knowledge production to address urgent contemporary issues.
Keri’s aim is to work across the whole of Uppsala University to explore how universities can build partnerships with local, national, and international communities, how we can develop powerful knowledge, and how we can educate students to enable the massive transitions we need to live well with climate change.
KEVIN ANDERSON – ZENNSTRÖM VISITING PROFESSOR 2016–2018
Dr. Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy and Climate Change
Kevin Anderson is one of the leading climate scientists in the U.K. He is Professor of Energy and Climate Change at the University of Manchester and Deputy Director at the renowned Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Kevin is a well-known and established researcher within climate change science who engages frequently with policy-makers, the private sector, civil society as well as the media. He has pioneered research on carbon budgets and pathways to acceptable mitigation levels. His work on the technical, social and economic interactions involved in the transformation of energy systems and the mitigation and adaptation to climate change, addresses questions at the core of this professorship’s theme.
Kevin is a prominent thinker, writer and communicator who built on and expanded the work of the first visiting professor in Climate Change Leadership, Doreen Stabinsky.
DOREEN STABINSKY – ZENNSTRÖM VISITING PROFESSOR 2015–2016
Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, Professor of Global Environmental Politics
Doreen Stabinsky is Professor of Global Environmental Politics at the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine. Her research, teaching, and writing concern the impacts of climate change, particularly on agriculture and global food security. She also serves as advisor to various governments and international environmental organisations, and has a large international network of collaborators.
Doreen stresses the central role that education must play in addressing the growing challenges of climate change and is known for her ability to strengthen young people’s capacity to contribute to a better world. The fact that the focus of the professorship itself was inspired by, and emerged from a student-led course on Climate Change Leadership at CEMUS, made Doreen a fitting first holder of the Zennström Visiting Professorship.
The Zennström Climate Change Leadership visiting professorship acts as a catalyst for public debate, research and education to directly address some of the most challenging questions that climate change poses to humanity. Since 2015 four Zennström Professors in Climate Change Leadership have been working with academics, students, civil society and public and private partners to both understand the scale of the civilisational transition needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to begin to develop routes towards that transition and prepare for adaptation.
Our current projects largely fall within four areas built upon the research themes of the Chairs of the Zennström professorship. These include:
Student engagement with international climate negotiations and justice
Our First Three Professors: Keri Facer, Doreen Stabinsky, and Kevin Anderson
Stefania Barca, the fourth Zennström professor in Climate Change Leadersship, Foto Mikael Wallerstedt
Climate change leadership is a dynamic field, crossing disciplinary and societal boundaries, with the aim to catalyse innovative and bold approaches to meet the complex challenges of climate change. This dynamism and energy is derived from the increasing demand for knowledge and practices to meet challenges across all sectors of society, from the local to international level. Climate change leadership is characterised by knowledge co-production between academia and society at large, to ensure effective and just institutional and socio-technological transformations.
The overall goal of the initiative is to actively shape an inter- and transdisciplinary intellectual environment that combines education, research and outreach in innovative ways and applies knowledge into equitable climate action. The climate change leadership environment engages with new forms of vibrant, trans- disciplinary and exploratory forums with world-leading climate scientists, key climate negotiators, business and civil society leaders, policy-makers, social entrepreneurs and, not least, students and young leaders.
Blog post by Zennström Professor Keri Facer on the Higher Education Policy Institute addressing the UPP Foundation Civic University Commission’s recent report on how universities can successfully serve in the 21st century. Climate change was a glaring omission in this report, as Keri writes.
The 2019 UN Climate Change Conference will take place 2-13 December in Santiago, Chile. Uppsala University has status as observer organization and will be sending a delegation to the conference. We are now calling upon engaged and motivated students in Uppsala to apply to join the delegation as Uppsala University’s representatives at the negotiations. This delegation is a part of Uppsala University’s ongoing involvement in the UN level climate negotiations, building on the Zennström Climate Change Leadership professorship and Uppsala University’s long tradition of student-leadership and active student participation.
Take advantage of this unique opportunity to take part in a process that is of paramount importance and build on the work of previous delegations’ involvement in these UN negotiations. This will also be a chance to engage the Uppsala University community in the conference outcomes and experiences.
Apply by providing aCV and a brief personal statement (no more than 1 page) that addresses the following questions:
What are your intellectual and academic interests at the moment?
Are you involved in any activities/initiatives that have a connection to climate change issues?
Why do you want to go to climate change conference in Santiago?
How does participating in the conference fit in with your studies, and/or research / professional interests?
How would you propose to collaboratively prepare, connect, and also feed-back with others at Uppsala University and in Uppsala that are interested in climate change and the negotiations, but not able not able to join the delegation?
Indicate which week you would like to join the COP, or if you would like to attend both weeks.
In order to be considered to join the delegation as a student, you will need to be enrolled at Uppsala University. In forming our delegation, we are looking to create a highly motivated, interdisciplinary team of students. Note that a selection to join the delegation does not entail funding for travel, food or housing. If you are selected and accept, you will need to commit to:
actively participating in at least one of the two weeks of the conference (2-6 December and/or 9-13 December);
being involved in organizing and contributing to events in Uppsala before, during, and after the event.
This week, Martin and Aaron travelled to Umeå to present several lectures on carbon budgets and meet with local government representatives and civil society groups.
Earlier this year, Fridays for Future Umeå approached the Climate Change Leadership Node requesting a carbon budget for their municipality. Until then, it had only been municipalities, regions and county boards that had commissioned a carbon budget from CCL.
Within 10 days the civil society grouped had fundraised enough money for the carbon budget which was delivered earlier this year.
On Monday Martin and Aaron lectured at various locations in the city. This culminated in a public lecture in the evening at Umeå University which was attended by over 200 members of the public.
Our most important recommendation from the presentations and associated carbon budgets is that governing bodies consider the cumulative effect of carbon dioxide emissions, pursue science-based targets and set goals accordingly.
“Science is not negotiable, another world is possible”
By Sanna Barrineau
25 June, 2019. It’s 37 degrees celsius in Bonn, Germany at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and it’s the second week of one of the largest climate change conferences in the world during an unprecedented European heatwave. Representatives of the UNFCCC blithely encourage conference participants to abandon their suits and ties so as to avoid the old-school style of keeling over due to heat exhaustion. Interventions by youth and climate justice groups offer dark contrasts to this relaxed humour in the form of die-ins, songs, and impassioned speeches. From my vantage point of observer, the phrase climate justice emerged in every room, yet was noticeably, albeit unsurprisingly, absent in the outcomes of the negotiations.
If one was determined to create the most just, fair, equal, and true-to-science global climate change regulation in history, one would be hard put to find a place with more qualified people in the room, brimming with passion and intent. While parties are busy negotiating behind closed doors, scientists and civil society groups create a rich series of side events, informative and supportive spaces for participants. The overall effectiveness of these is lessened by the absence of parties, leaving the session leaders to preach to the choir but also to proffer narratives of ‘green growth’ that are met by frustration by the ‘systems change, not climate change’ advocates and representatives of LDCs suffering the negligence of this mantra.
UNFCCC conference center, Bonn
Here are some observations from a humble observer:
Intergenerational justice: Referring to the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, Dr Julie Brigham-Grette stated that, “We are in uncharted territory”. 120 years is all it takes to do what we have done with our emissions. Strong scientific inputs on intergenerational justice in climate policy, but still talk about “green growth” from the Nordic consortium (including Finland who has declared that it will reach net-zero emissions by 2035). Results of this kind of climate leadership have clear consequences for future generations.
Sailing to COP25: A consortium of folks will be sailing to COP25 in Chile to avoid the emissions associated with flying. They were recruiting co-sailors for the journey.
Climate Apartheid: A report published by UN special rapporteur stated that we’re creating a ‘Climate apartheid’. “Developing countries will bear an estimated 75% of the costs of the climate crisis… despite the poorest half of the world’s population causing just 10% of carbon dioxide emissions.”
Sweden’s Ambition: Although Sweden showed ambition in relation to their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), reliance on future negative emission technologies are far from certain in their mitigation roadmap. Territorial emissions are decreasing, but is it decoupling or delusion?
Gender and Climate Change: Ideas and examples abound for implementing gender-responsive NDCs. In preparation for COP25, WEDO is developing a report on what processes have been happening trying to link gender and NDCs and climate policies. See also their Gender Climate Tracker App. Key thoughts from this session: Effects of climate change are felt differently across class and gender. Gender-sensitive climate policy is key to decreasing social inequalities.
Migration and Displacement: Climate-induced migration highlights how the poor are especially vulnerable to climate change. Teresa Anderson, ActionAid International, explains that there is massive displacement taking place as a result of climate change. Displacement is triggered by disasters but is dependent on economic and social factors, therefore most difficult for the poor who have fewer options than those with capital. See more on this topic: Climate Change Knows No Borders (publication). Climate change always adds an additional layer to the intersectional look at migration and so, approaching from a human rights based perspective should always guide our decisions and actions. The ultimate goal is to respond with solidarity.
My week in Bonn concluded with seeing hundreds of cyclists bearing the Fridays for Future flag making their way through the city. Another world is possible.
Fridays for Future Demonstration, Bonn
Filibustering and Floundering – SB50 in Bonn
Guest post by Guy Finkill, CEMUS, Climate Change Leadership in Practice
Death by a thousand acronyms. That’s what it can often feel like when engaging with the subsidiary body negotiations at the UNFCCC at its headquarters in the leafy and embassy-ridden area of Bonn. In reality, the situation is much more dire – as an unprecedented heatwave stretches across Europe, the secretariat is forced into making bold and impactful decisions. Banishing big polluters from the negotiation space? No. Think again. They amend the official dress code so men are not forced to sweat themselves into a stupor on their way to the spacious air-conditioned conference halls where they negotiate their level of compassion for countries bearing the real brunt of the rapidly emerging extremes of climate change.
Morality falls victim to bureaucracy. Political will shudders in the face of a potential downturn in prosperity. In the multi-lateral assessment forum, the UK boast their 38% reduction in territorial emissions since 1990 while still achieving an upturn in economic growth (4). And growth and prosperity are good for everyone, right? Let’s take a moment to think about who this unquestionable prosperity is benefitting. Last time I checked, the UK was experiencing the highest levels of inequality since the 1960s (6) with 44% of the nation’s wealth in the hands of 10% of the population (7). The green growth narrative is top of the agenda here at SB50 with outlandish claims of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 being the hot topic. The fanciful mathematics and geoengineering pipedreams (3) that these claims are based upon have yet to truly enter the discussion, but that time will come.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt play pass the obfuscating parcel as the AIM (Arrangements for Intergovernmental meetings) negotiations dance around the subject of Conflict of Interest within the negotiation arena. Delegations huddle together, before they make their official announcements in the form of bureaucratic riddles, shrouded in the legitimatisation of political diplomacy. The US, infamous for declaring their withdrawal from ratifying the Paris Agreement, are still lingering around; pushing for BINGO (Business and Industry NGOs) accredited representatives to have a higher degree of participation in the discussions – efficiently opening the door for the fossil fuel industry to the conference while washing their hands of responsibility with the blood of the small-island developing states.
Chile, hosts of the upcoming COP25, are on the charm offensive in preparation for their presidency of the next round of negotiations; dishing out complimentary wine every evening to distinguished delegates. The chink of glasses brimming with Merlot appear to be sufficient to extinguish the concern of residents of Isla Riesco as the Chilean government battles its own environmental court to keep a devastating open-cast mine operational (8).
Environmental NGOs and youth groups rally together to call out the elephant in the room, tirelessly working towards increased transparency and kicking big polluters out of the negotiation space. Here are the closing remarks of Climate Justice Now (04:38-06:30), denouncing nation states for their continued subsidising of the fossil fuel industry (1) while employing market mechanisms and offsetting (2) to delay climate action and enforce the seemingly impermeable strategy of inertia. Progressive discussions in the side events hosted by these groups provide fresh hope and inspiration to a jaded observer – unfortunately these events are not mandatory for party delegates to attend, perhaps something for the UNFCCC to consider in future meetings of the subsidiary bodies. And so, the 50th meeting of the subsidiary bodies draws to a close, a few modifications to official texts achieved but not much to write home about. ~8000 activists were involved in the occupation of Garzweiler lignite coal mine less than 70km away from the UNFCCC conference in between the two weeks of talks – demanding climate justice as state-funded police brutally repress their call to action. Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg called for us to panic at COP24 in Poland & the World Economic Forum in Davos as our house is on fire. Swathes of forest fires currently engulf areas outside of Berlin (5), our house IS on fire, perhaps we should take acti … ah wait it’s 17:30, I think the Chilean presidency stand are serving wine again. Good, I’m parched.
References
1. Coady, D., Parry, I., Sears, L. & Shang, B. 2017, “How Large Are Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies?”, World Development, vol. 91, pp. 11-27.
