11 minute read
Towards a fossil-free future
TOWARDS A FOSSILFUTURE
TOWARDS A FOSSIL-FREE FUTURE
We are moving towards a fossil-free future, but why so slowly?
“One major factor is science denial. Another is politics; there is a very high decision threshold,” says newly appointed Senior Lecturer in Climate Leadership Mikael Karlsson. One way to speed up progress is collaboration between different fields of research and various societal st akeholders.
text ANNICA HULTH photo MIKAEL WALLERSTEDT
MIKAEL KARLSSON IS A DOCENT in environmental science, and a member of the management group of the Fair Transformations to a Fossil Free Future (FAIRTRANS) programme, which is funded by independent research foundation Mistra. This is a substantial project involving many different stakeholders from academia, the business community, trade unions and environmental organisations. Together, they will develop a carbon budget for emissions over time that meets national commitments and ambitious environmental targets. Above all, however, the programme will study how the transformation can be achieved fairly.
“One thing we hope to prepare is a manifesto for transition. There is a general perception in politics that transition is expensive, difficult and widely unpopular. We are exploring how we can get past such barriers.”
The programme will study the efficacy of various policy instruments; for example, the oft criticised carbon tax and petrol tax, which have nevertheless been shown to work. The parties are now discussing new instruments, such as setting deadlines for ending the sale of petrol, diesel and fossil-fuelled vehicles.
“We will be studying various strategies to see which ones can give the desired effect. How do the stakeholders perceive fairness, what do we all agree is fair and where do we disagree? Is there any scientific uncertainty that can be resolved by additional research?”
ANOTHER QUESTION IS why progress is so slow when we know so much about both the problem and the available solutions, and indeed why we are not implementing the solutions.
“One major factor is science denial. Another is politics; there is a very high decision threshold. The burden of proof lies with those who want more done. Those seeking tougher climate goals or policy instruments often need to demonstrate that the benefits will outweigh the costs, while those backing ‘business as usual’ seldom face the same demands.”
In fact, it may be more profitable to invest in the environment than not to do so. Sweden has been a pioneer in environmental and climate issues ever since the Environmental Protection Act was passed in 1969 and, far from losing out financially, according to Karlsson the opposite is true.
“It is empirically proven that, rather than pioneer countries losing competitiveness and jobs, countries with progressive environmental policies are the ones with the highest employment and growth.”
Although the very language of climate policy tends to make action appear problematic and expensive, more and more politicians and companies are beginning to see an opportunity in becoming global leaders. Major corporations are investing in green steel and batteries, while both the retail and agricultural sectors are investing in organic produce as a way of strengthening their market position.
ACCORDING TO KARLSSON, different types of environmental problem go through similar phases. In the case of the environmentally hazardous chlorofluorocarbons once found in aerosol sprays and refrigerators, as far back as the early 1970s a few scientists warned that the substances could deplete the ozone layer.
“Many members of the scientific community rebutted their findings as ‘no more than theory’. The researchers were ridiculed and targeted by the chemical industry.”
Then, however, scientists began to study ozone depletion and in 1985 British researchers took measurements showing that there was indeed a hole in the ozone layer. When the world did finally begin to take action, things moved surprisingly quickly.
“We know that historically societies have been rapidly transformed,” says Mikael Karlsson, researcher in climate leadership.
The FAIRTRANS project will study the efficacy of various policy instruments, such as setting deadlines for ending the sale of petrol, diesel and fossil-fuelled vehicles.
“Science, politics and business moved in unison at accelerated pace. Industry woke up to the problem and politicians were keen to be seen to be on the front foot. The production of Freon declined rapidly and, in 1995, the scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.”
THESE DIFFERENT PHASES can also be applied to climate change, which was identified in the late nineteenth century in Svante Arrhenius’s work on global warming. There is a fairly obvious delayed reaction – something else that Karlsson has studied.
He arrived at Uppsala University’s Department of Earth Sciences in midMarch 2021. The department has been a hub for climate-change leadership since 2015 and hosts the International Zennström Professorship in Climate Change Leadership, the fourth and latest incumbent of which is Stefania Barca, a researcher in environmental humanities.
At the Paris Climate Conference of 2015, 175 countries reached a historic agreement on measures to reduce carbon emissions.
The research environment also includes the Centre for Environment and Development Studies (CEMUS) graduate school (CEFO). The doctoral students at CEFO are studying various subjects at different departments of the University but are all focused on sustainable development. One of them is Isak Stoddard, who is studying for a PhD in earth sciences.
“One significant risk is that climate change is often presented as a problem to be fixed, which is a simplistic view. While climate change certainly has enormous societal and ecological consequences, it is also important to view climate change as a symptom of a fundamentally unsustainable and exploitative societal development, something that demands every possible approach from various disciplines.”
Sachiko Ishihara is a doctoral student of cultural geography who is studying people who have relocated from the city to the countryside of southwest Japan and their views of ‘the good life’ compared to the dominant ideas in society. She receives a great deal of support from her colleagues at CEFO. “As well as gaining new perspectives, it is important to me personally that this is such a good Sachiko Ishihara. group. A doctoral project can be a fairly lonely enterprise and I don’t have very many colleagues at my own department working on sustainable development. It is very important to have a group within which you can exchange ideas.”
PASCOAL JOÃO GOTA participates via video link from Mozambique. A doctoral student of archaeology, Pascoal is researching environmental protection Pascoal João Gota. in national parks and whether those in power utilise the experiences and knowledge of local populations. Since presenting his doctoral project to his fellow students, he has received many useful comments.
“I feel enriched when someone in natural sciences, engineering or social sciences asks about my research, because it allows me to see other perspectives and viewpoints that I hadn’t reflected on myself.”
Helena Fornstedt is a doctoral student of engineering who is researching innovation and sustainable development. She has gained many interesting insights since joining CEFO, including reading Pascoal’s research.
“It was fascinating and something I would otherwise not have heard about. I will also benefit from it in future research projects. I’m an industrial engineer but Pascoal’s research on the local perspective shows just how complicated the issue is. Personally, I find that the glimpses I’m offered by others at CEFO make me rethink and reflect.”
EVEN IF CEFO has a broader remit than simply climate issues, it is of course something that the doctoral students give a great deal of thought to. What do they think about the societal situation right now; do we need more knowledge about climate change?
“We need to produce knowledge and know-how and reach out to the public and other stakeholders but, at the same time, we need to understand how we humans can change our behaviour. During this process we need to consider ethical issues, freedom and democracy, because we can’t simply tell people to change their behaviour – that’s something we need to negotiate,” says Pascoal João Gota. Helena Fornstedt is in partial agreement. Helena Fornstedt. “We need better
access to climate-related knowledge from many different disciplines. Although we already have a great deal of knowledge, it’s difficult to get at, both for people outside academia and for researchers working outside the academic discipline in which it is produced. As researchers we are not encouraged to engage in popular science, but this is a real need in society, not least because so much money is pumped into the ‘fake news’ industry in various countries.”
ISAK STODDARD, on the other hand, answers no, we don’t need more knowledge about climate change. According to him, what we do need is a better understanding of the precarious situation that society and humankind finds itself in – and the major consequences this may have in future.
“If you really want to create greater understanding, then researchers must adopt a different role in relation to major societal changes.”
Whenever researchers want to inform people about the severe ethical and material consequences of climate change, they risk being exploited for political ends or presented in the media in a manner that actually increases public resistance.
“What can happen when society encounters this message is that we see our future as preordained: either everything is going to hell or we must do x, y or z. The media often portrays the issue as black and white and I find that very dangerous, even when done with the best intentions. It’s a paradox: how do we communicate what researchers have to say about the serious situation we find ourselves in while remaining open about the future?”
Isak Stoddard.
MIKAEL KARLSSON TAKES a positive attitude towards the future and describes himself as an optimist, though with a factbased approach to the climate issue.
“A great deal has happened since the Paris Agreement. We know that historically societies have been rapidly transformed. The Berlin Wall didn’t come down stone by stone, it happened very quickly. We also know that rapid technological shifts happen from time to time; just consider how we use mobile phones and IT compared to 10 years ago. Similarly, I don’t believe that reducing vehicle emissions is a linear process. We make technological leaps.”
Karlsson attended the Paris climate conference in December 2015, having attended a number of earlier climate meetings at which the European Union, United States and China were constantly at odds. This time, things were different. At the press conference, the stage was occupied by the EU, the Global South and African and Caribbean countries.
“The United States came in and admitted: ‘We agree that we have done too little’. Then China came in and said: ‘We agree’. I was welling up. India wasn’t yet on board but backed the agreement a week later,” he says.
This was in striking contrast to the 2009 Copenhagen conference of world leaders, when Obama flew in and was expected to solve the climate issue, only for the meeting to collapse. Since Paris, the world has kept moving.
“Even when Trump withdrew, the other countries continued. There is a completely new geopolitical situation; it’s not as if the other countries simply threw in the towel, they redoubled their efforts.”
NOW, WITH BIDEN as president, the US has challenged Europe’s global lead in climate policy, with high ambitions, substantial sums of money and good policy instruments. In turn, the EU is also upgrading its climate policy, while in Sweden, new measures are planned. However, according to the governmentappointed Swedish Climate Policy Council, this is not enough.
“Politicians are beginning to talk about more ambitious targets and measures. The challenge is great but the goals are within reach,” says Mikael Karlsson. ●
FAIRTRANS
■ The goal of the research programme is to pave the way for a fair, fossil-free future. One important part of the programme is to develop socially accepted climate action based on a carbon budget consistent with the Paris Agreement. Together, academia, civil society and other stakeholders will devise scientifically underpinned strategies and frameworks that are perceived as fair, justified and effective. The programme, which is hosted by Stockholm University, is funded by Mistra and Formas.
The Paris Agreement
■ The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change that entered into force in 2016. At the core of the agreement is an undertaking to restrict global warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Three of the most important aims are to: • limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels; • successively increase the level of ambition, with a stocktake every five years; and • ensure that developed countries offer support to developing countries.
Svante Arrhenius
■ Swedish physicist and chemist (1859–1927) who worked broadly across the sciences. A professor of physics at Stockholm University College, he became the first Swedish Nobel laureate when he was awarded the 1903 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 1896, he was the first to predict that atmospheric carbon dioxide could trap heat, thus raising the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He theorised that the variation in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels explained why ice ages are interspersed with warmer periods.
