Mikael Karlsson diskuterar klimaträttvisa i ett seminarium ordnade av Formas och Mistra.
Page 6 of 10
Daniel Lindvall skriver om klimatkrisen, omställningen och lömskla problem för Mänsklig säkerhet. FN:s klimatpanel har sedan 1990 rapporterat om allvarliga konsekvenser som kan följa av global uppvärmning och framhållit vikten av minskade utsläpp. Att det idag görs för lite beror både på aktivt motstånd och att problemen är mångfacetterade och komplexa, rent av ”lömska”. Men komplexiteten får inte hindra nödvändig handling, vilket bäst säkras i öppna demokratiska system där felsteg fortlöpande kan korrigeras.
Daniel Lindvall, forskare i Klimatledarskap, har skrivit artikeln Demokratin inför klimatkrisen. Kan framtida generationers fri- och rättigheter säkras?, för kommitten Demokratin 100 års framåtblickande antologi om Sveriges demokrati och dess olika aspekter. Läs artikeln här
Artikeln beskriver hur demokratins fortlevnad är nära förbunden med dess förmåga att snabbt få ner utsläppen av växthusgaser och att han[1]tera olika klimatkonsekvenser. Att värna demokratin är också att värna om klimatet och framtiden. Vi har redan fått känna på jordens reaktioner på människans utsläpp av växthusgaser – värmeböljor, skogsbränder och översvämningar. Detta i kombination med stigande havsnivåer och förlusten av biolo[1]gisk mångfald kommer att påverka hela vårt samhällssystem och vår existens. Det handlar bland annat om en generations[1]överskridande orättvisa, men också om hur demokratin kan användas för ett långsiktigt beslutsfattande.
FN:s klimattoppmöte COP26 närmar sig och förväntningarna är stora på vad världens ledare och dess förhandlingsteam ska kunna åstadkomma. Vad kommer att ske i Glasgow – och kommer mötet att lyckas?
Klicka på länken för att lyssna till Omvärldens podden med Mikael Karlsson.
Daniel Lindvall, researcher at Climate Change Leadership, is today publishing the Discussion paper Democracy and the Challenges of Climate Change, for International IDEA. You can read the full paper here.
The paper discussed correlation between climate change and democratic development. Certain climate consequences, as for example scarcity of food or rising food prices, are known to lead to social unrest and political instability and may lead to democratic breakdown, particularly in fragile democracies with weak state institutions. Other climate related emergency situations may have positive effects for democracy, bringing people together and providing opportunities for regime change, but they could also be used as an excuse for autocratic or hybrid regimes to curtail democratic freedoms.
The paper also present research on the weaknesses and strengths of democracy in dealing with the climate crisis. It argues that democratic states are generally performing better on environment protection policies and climate action than autocratic states. However, factors such as the level of corruption and the size of the fossil fuel industry are affecting the climate performance negatively.
Generally speaking, the outcome of the climate crisis will depend on whether democracies can drastically reduce their carbon footprints in the coming years. Climate change poses a challenging test for democracies’ ability to cooperate and confront highly complex global challenges. In conclusion, democracies need to formulate adequate and ambitious policy responses to climate change for democracy to remain a legitimate and credible political system for young people and future generations.
The report will be discussed at a webinar on 26 October, at which Dr Kevin Casas-Zamora, Secretary-General, International IDEA, Jan Wahlberg, the Finnish Climate Change Ambassador, Dr Julia Leininger, German Development Institute, & Member of International IDEA’s Board of Advisers, and Ms Elizabeth Wathuti, Founder of Green Generation Initiative and sustainability analyst at Sustainable Square, Kenya, will participate. Register for the webinar here
Mikael Karlsson, Isabel Baudish, Jens Ergon and Daniel Lindvall are gearing up for an intense few weeks at COP26 in Glasgow in November. They are joined by members of the Uppsala University delegation, listed below, to follow the negotiations and push for more focus on the issues of science-based climate governance, societal transformation and overcoming climate denial.
While at COP26 in Glasgow we will be reporting back regularly on the key activities from that day. You can follow us here on the blog or directly connect to us on twitter @CCLUPPSALA
What is COP26?
COP26 is held in Glasgow November 2021. COP stands for Conference of the Parties through which governments negotiate the ways they want to collectively tackle climate change. You can read more about the COPs and the agenda for Glasgow on the official website or check out this visual explainer.
The EU has published their position for the climate summit at COP26, which you can read here.
What will CCL be doing while there?
Climate Change Leadership have three main tasks at Glasgow. Firstly, we will be presenting our recent research activities to drive forward the conversations about just climate governance and societal transformations. Secondly, we will be working with journalists and decision makers to ensure that science-based decision making processes are reflected upon in the public sphere. Thirdly, we will be coordinating a number of events with our Nordic colleagues at the Nordic Pavilion. You can read more about these events here.
Uppsala University’s COP26 Delegation
The researchers from Climate Change Leadership will be joined by other Uppsala University delegates.
- Karoline Gahne, Project Leader at STUNs Energi
- Kevin Anderson, Professor of Climate and Energy, Manchester University; Visiting Professor at Uppsala University
- Charles Parker, Associate Professor in Political Science, Uppsala University
- Charlotte Flodin, PhD Student in Wind Energy, Uppsala University
- Ashley Farber, Course Coordinator at CEMUS, Uppsala University
Uppsala University delegates followed the negotiations behind the Paris Agreement.
In Marrakesh the Uppsala University delegation pushed for climate justice perspectives.
Connect with us directly on twitter as we report back from the negotations live.
To mark the start of the Autumn 2021 semester, fourth Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership Stefania Barca delivered the CEMUS start up lecture to a collection of students both in person and online.
You can watch a recording of the talk, ‘Climate, Covid and the Global Care Crisis – New Pathways to a Just Transition,’ below.
Former MSc in Sustainable Development student Juliane Höhle made a graphic recording of the session, found below.
Sanna Gunnarsson, alumni of CEMUS, writes a brilliant analysis of carbon budgets and climate governance in her Masters thesis for KTH. Through her study of two local carbon budgets she explores the potential of this as a tool for sustainability transition through the lenses of three narratives: Tweak the system, Re-invent the system, and Shake the system. Read more in her thesis here:
For original news post on Geo (på svenska) read here.
On the 9th of August, the UN Climate Panel released the first part of its new climate report. The report is a comprehensive compilation of the current scientific state of knowledge regarding climate change, including climate models and scenarios.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres says the report should be considered a red flag for humanity. The risk is clear: within ten years we will pass the Paris Agreement’s goal of a 1.5 degree temperature rise. As before, it is stated that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause and that sea levels are rising. More clearly than ever, the IPCC points out that the increase in extreme weather events such as heat waves and droughts is primarily due to humanity’s impact on the climate.
Mikael Karlsson, associate professor of environmental science and senior lecturer in climate change leadership comments on the report.
Does the report contain anything surprising?
– We have been sure since at least the 1990s that humans affect the climate and that it has serious consequences so the main features are well known. Since then research has become considerably clearer on what is happening, where it is happening and how fast it is happening. What is perhaps most surprising is how clear the climate panel is now about the increase in extreme weather. It moves what many thought were future consequences to the here and now, says Mikael Karlsson, associate professor of environmental science at Uppsala University.
Which areas of the world are most vulnerable?
– Probably the biggest problem with climate change is that it is getting drier in the world where drought is already a big problem and where many people live in deep poverty. This will be developed in the second part of the report in February next year. But today’s report shows extensive climate impact in our part of the world as well. In the far north of the globe the warming will be greater than average and we will see more extreme weather in the future. This may be in the form of fires and floods that can cause great damage, says Mikael Karlsson, associate professor of environmental science at Uppsala University.
Is it too late to reverse the trend?
– Absolutely not. Admittedly some trends, such as sea level rise, will continue for centuries, but the pace can be slowed down considerably and many other catastrophic scenarios can be avoided altogether. It is still quite possible to meet the goal of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. The third part of the report, which will be published in March next year, shows how this can be done. But we already know today that many solutions are available and our research shows that even in the short term it can be profitable to change direction, says Mikael Karlsson, associate professor of environmental science at Uppsala University.
What happens now? How should society act, how do we get there and how can I as an individual act?
– The solution catalog is thick and more and more politicians, business leaders and individuals are taking responsibility and trying to reduce emissions. By all accounts, that work will accelerate in the near future. Within the EU a number of measures were proposed this summer and later this autumn there will be a global climate summit in Glasgow. Climate work is also intensifying in Sweden, although much remains to be done. As an individual you can do a lot – eat a little more green, cycle and walk a little more often, opting first for a train and bus are simple measures. The best part is that many measures also give us better health and finances, says Mikael Karlsson, associate professor of environmental science at Uppsala University.
Undoing the Anthropocene
In her book “Forces of Reproduction. Notes for a Counter-Hegemonic Anthropocene” (2020), Stefania Barca, drawing on a materialist eco-feminist analysis of the world, proposes a counter-narrative to the hegemonic one around the Anthropocene. She questions the exclusionary and normative character of the dominant narrative and, thus, she challenges the very foundations of capitalist/industrial modernity. In doing so, by bringing forward a narrative justice, she makes visible and accounted for those who have been removed, silenced, denied existence. These other-than-master subjects and beings are what she calls “the forces of reproduction” – those who do the work of sustaining life in its material and immaterial needs. These life-enhancing forces are, for Stefania, “a queer political subject” and a “political subject in the making”.
In her keynote talk, listen below, she focuses on the above and shows how we need to dismantle the master’s house, by undoing the [hegemonic] Anthropocene.
Forces of Reproduction
In her book Forces of Reproduction: Notes for a Counter-Hegemonic Anthropocene (2020), Stefania Barca, drawing on a materialist ecofeminist analysis of the world, proposes a counter-narrative to the hegemonic one around the Anthropocene. She questions the exclusionary and normative character of the dominant narrative and, thus, she challenges the very foundations of capitalist/industrial modernity. In doing so, by bringing forward a narrative justice, she makes visible and accounted for those who have been removed, silenced, denied existence. These other-than-master subjects and beings are what she calls “the forces of reproduction” – those who do the work of sustaining life in its material and immaterial needs. These life-enhancing forces are, for Stefania, “a queer political subject” and a “political subject in the making”.
Throughout this year Stefania has been involved in a number of events discussing the themes of her book. You can watch the different recordings below. Thank you to all involved for the opportunity to be part of these events!
In April Stefania was invited into a dialogue with Nancy Fraser, Hedda Andersson visiting Professor at LUCSUS, Lund University. The dialogue featured a book presentation by Stefania, followed by a discussion by Nancy Fraser. The event was moderated by Vasna Ramasar(Associate Senior Lecturer at Lund University) and organised by The Pufendorf IAS Advanced Study Group on Social Reproduction and Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS).
In her June keynote talk for the University of Coimbra, she discussed her analysis of reproductive forces, showing how we need to dismantle the master’s house, by undoing the [hegemonic] Anthropocene.
In February, Stefania also gave a seminar about her book for the Environmental Justice research group at ICTA, the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB).
This year Climate Change Leadership was glad to co-host the conference with KlimatSekretariat and KlimatRikstag as organising partners together with Fackförbundet Vision.
The conference this year was a 3-day digital format, bringing together researchers, students, the public sector, civil society and others to explore the science and politics of climate change mitigation. This marked the second carbon budgets conference to be held in Sweden, and built on the work established by past Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership, Kevin Anderson, in designing carbon budgets for Swedish municipalities during his time in Uppsala.
Day 1 of the conference was held in English, and had a particular focus on research and questions at the interface of science and policy. It began with a keynote by Professor of Energy and Climate Kevin Anderson presenting on moving from net-zero to real-zero, and how we can use carbon budgets to frame Paris-compliant mitigation policies.
The day continued with a series of speed talks on the science and politics of rapid mitigation. The talks ran as follows:
- Christopher Jones (Tyndall Centre) on ‘International outlooks and Translating the Paris Agreement into local climate change goals’
- Sanna Gunnarsson (KTH) and Derek Garfield (Uppsala University) about municipal and regional carbon budgets as a tool for local climate transitions
- Johan Gärdebo (Linköping University) on Swedish Just Transition and its relationship to Union Workers
- Mikael Karlsson (Climate Change Leadership, Uppsala University) on barriers and drivers when using carbon budgets for societal transformations
Following the speed talks, participants had the opportunity to join breakout rooms with one of the speakers:
The day concluded with a panel discussion exploring the opportunities and limitations of carbon budgets and science-based approaches to societal transition. The panel was moderated by CCL affiliated PhD Isak Stoddard and the following guests:
- Kevin Anderson (Professor of Energy and Climate with joint chairs at the Universities of Manchester, Uppsala and Bergen)
- Carly McLachlan (Deputy Director on Tyndall Centre)
- Stefania Barca (Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership, Uppsala University)
- Martin Wetterstedt (researcher at Uppsala University and the Mälardalen Energy Agency)
Day 2 and 3 were in Swedish, with Day 2 focusing on questions of local and regional governance, and Day 3 on the roles of civil society.
To learn more about the conference, access presenter slides and more video content visit https://en.co2-budget.com/
On May 24, 2011, Maria do Espirito Santo and Zé Cláudio Ribeiro da Silva, nut collectors and members of the agroforestry project (Projeto Agro-Extractivista, PAE) of Praialta Piranheira in the Brazilian Amazon, were brutally murdered as a consequence of their engagement in protecting the forest from illegal logging and timber trafficking. Making their lives out of a non-exploitative and regenerative relationship with the forest, and passionate about the defence of the rights of both Amazonia and its people, Maria’s and Zé Cláudio’s deaths belong to the number of earth defenders whose lives are being taken, year after year, for opposing the infinite expansion of global economic growth and social metabolism (Global Witness 2019). In 2012, the pair were posthumously recognised as Forest Heroes by the United Nations Forum on Forests Secretariat for their work fighting illegal forestry.
This May we honoured their memory and talked about their legacy for environmental justice struggles in Brazil and beyond. Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership, Stefania Barca, and Bartira Fortes, representative of Latinamerikagrupperna, held a moderated discussion with:
- Claudelice de Silva Santos, Zé Cláudio’s sister and frontline defender, who continues to oppose the human rights and land violations happening in the wake of land grabbing and logging. Claudelice fights for, in her words, the ‘the right to land and to life’, and was nominated for the 2019 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, organised by the European Parliament. She is completing a law degree at the Federal University of South and Southeast Pará.
- Felipe Milanez, one of Brazil’s leading journalists documenting the Amazon, regular contributor to CartaCapital and VICE magazine, and former editor of National Geographic Brazil. He lived and worked closely with Maria and Zé Claudio before their murders, his documentary 2011 film Toxic Amazon tells their story. Felipe is now a professor at the Institute of Humanities, Arts and Sciences and the multidisciplinary Culture and Society graduate program at the Federal University of Bahia.
You can find recordings from the event in English and Portuguese here.
The tragedy of Zé Cláudio and Maria’s murder is not in isolation. In 2019 alone, it is estimated that over 200 environmental defenders were killed as a consequence of their commitment to protect the environment and indigenous lands. Indigenous leaders and Indigenous women leaders in particular have been at the forefront of this struggle. How can we make sense of the violence against earth defenders in a time when their work is all the more important in the context of climate change? What can we learn from their stories about the transition to a post-carbon future?
We strongly encourage watching the freely available 60min documentary film from Vice Magazine, Toxic Amazon, to give context for the discussion. You can also watch Claudelice’s speech at the European Parliament here (begins at approximately 15:25, select your choice of language.) We also recommend reading more about Maria and Zé Cláudio’s story and other environmental defenders to learn more about the context. This recent book, Environmental Defenders : Deadly Struggles for Life and Territory, includes contributions by Claudelice and Felipe.
This event was a collaboration between Climate Change Leadership at Uppsala University and Latinamerikagrupperna.
This text is a part of a travelling conversation
Response to Keri’s letter
Reading your reflection makes me think a lot of Vanessa and colleagues’ Bricks and Threads cartography; the bricks and threads stand for a set of ways of being, the bricks representing fixed forms, linear time (‘things move forward’), and self-worth depends on external validation; threads emphasize shape-shifting, layered time, everything is living, and self-worth is grounded in connection. Knowledge under the metaphor of bricks is layered – it can be discovered, accumulated and transmitted – while knowledge in the threading metaphor is interlacing – oriented towards relationality, it comes from many places and is earned, rather than being an entitlement. The frustration I think you reflect on is with the brick sensibilities, a frustration that I share with you.
While I (unfortunately) haven’t experienced the final episode of Buffy, I think I can appreciate the comparison – Our job is not to rescue the university, but to create conditions for thoughtful cultures to grow. In the university, there are a lot of people (and other creatures?) holding threads of myriad colors, lengths, passed down by different ancestors. But the university is also physically a pile of bricks, stacked neatly, carefully preserving and protecting its monocultures within. Bricks are heavy to move. Perhaps using the threads, we can begin to weave, finding the cervices in the rock through which to thread our refusal of the exclusiveness of the academy. We braid allegiances – we do not erase differences, historical or systemic violences, contradictions or uncertainty. It is a mosaic. What would this do to the infrastructure of this place called the university?
Something else Vanessa also talks a lot about is our guts. And listening with our guts. Guts are also places where we build cultures, and the places that give us the sense that we are related to everything. Folks who practice fermentation understand that the bigger variety of bacterial cultures we cultivate in ourselves the healthier we are. So, if we think about sustainable academic cultures, we must prepare the ground for as much diversity as possible, bringing the worlds and struggles and matters of concern of the people. This is the foundation for thoughtful cultures to grow, putting all these into conversation. I can almost hear it now; the stories that emerge from these types of encounters, not words words words; the diverse ways of making sense that manifest.
I guess a lot of the Buffy series took place at night since that’s when vampires are active in whatever ways vampires are active. Women must then be battling vampires in the dark, and hanging out there a bunch if they are going to become prolific slayers of demons. So, to just take one more metaphor (apologies!), what does being in the dark allow (besides all becoming kick-ass vampire slayers rather than sleeping and relying on heroes)? I think back to the Dark Futures talk in Oslo – being in the dark attunes us to the multiple senses to which we have access if we only would stop just seeing. Sitting with the darkness invites us to rediscover the power it imbues which we have ignored as a society. So maybe it involves listening with our guts, to realise that the future is full of fucking light.
Sanna Barrineau, written June 2020, published here April 2021
This piece is the final one in a travelling conversation.
This text is a part of a travelling conversation
Today, talking with a dear friend and close collaborator, we were discussing how the hell to work and what it means to try to work as an academic when faced with the all encompassing shitshow that is our current planetary situation – not just the pandemic, but the sheer unholy mess that is our economic, ecological, spiritually impoverished condition. Just having the conversation helped get me out of a funk I’d been in all week. Lakin is right, encounter matters. Above all, for me, conversation matters. Conversation is a place for crying and for laughter, for testing ideas, for human connection, for articulating and working out what on earth it is you think you think. Conversation is also the place where something new can emerge alongside relations of care, of love, of friendship. And conversation is precisely what we don’t usually have time for in universities. We are all talk – and god this pandemic has made that apparent, words words words, meetings meetings meetings – but no conversation.
At the moment sustainable academic culture is an impossibility. Academic culture is not sustainable – at all. It depends on resource extraction to the point of exhaustion; on the sustained exploitation of people, in particular young people; on the elision of ideas with wealth, education with human capital, knowledge with ‘intellectual property’. And those who resist this with a call for return to the good old days are equally tied up in defending prestige, status, salaries – a different form of extraction, equally unsustainable. It is not even sustainable in its own financialised terms – UK universities are facing a £3-4bn loss of income next year because they depend on flying international students around the world to sell them degrees at prices inflated three times above local students costs. There have been job losses – youngest and women hit hardest (there is no Titanic chivalry here) – anyone on temporary contracts, those on short term contracts, have gone. And the plan now is to move it all online. This is not sustainable, it is not even baseline ethical.
So let’s unpick what the deeper desire is under this question. What is my desire in sitting down and trying to answer it?
So – I think what I am longing for is for cultural practices and institutions that harbour and defend curiosity about the world, integrity and honesty in witnessing what is happening, exploration of divergent views and experiences, careful and thoughtful reflection about how we should act, the ability to learn quickly as we go, and the opportunity to interrogate and work out who you are becoming. This – to me – is the work of a lifetime and the work of society.
In other words, this sort of ‘culture’ is a world I want to live in, not just an institution. So what I think I want to work towards right now is not the rescue of the university, or of academic cultures as we have them, but towards the seeding of a much wider set of cultural practices that defend these values strongly. The analogy is with the end of Buffy the Vampire Slayer – if you have not seen this, I recommend it – when she finally realises that her power is not to keep fighting vampires and killing demons, but to give all young women the power to do it*. Our job is not to rescue the university, but to create conditions for thoughtful cultures to grow.
So perhaps if our desire is for sustainable academic cultures – then it starts with a refusal – a refusal to accept the university as the exclusive place in which these practices of inquiry and integrity can take place. We have antecedents in this refusal – the trades union movement was an educational movement, the civil rights movement was an educational movement, the co-operative movement was an educational movement. This was an education in thinking, not indoctrination, in unlearning not acquisition of set truths, of critique and interrogation not rote acceptance. These movements worked through universities and schools and colleges, but not for them, they drew on insights from universities and schools but contributed to the wider movement, they understood how to harness the power of disciplinary knowledge but did not think that that was all that circumscribed the world or the only game to play. These movements were, first and foremost, located in the worlds and struggles and matters of concern of the people. And this is where a truly sustainable academic culture must be based. We may then decide to use universities for what they can offer to nurture this, but our service and our allegiances are elsewhere.
Keri Facer, written in April 2020, published here in April 2021
A response to this will be published next week on Tuesday the 13th of April:
Week 15: Weaving, guts and darkness, Sanna Barrineau
*Buffy final Episode: https://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Chosen_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)