| 1. |
- Knaggård, Åsa, et al.
(författare)
-
Den politiska kontexten
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Ekosystembaserad klimatanpassning : En kunskapsöversyn - En kunskapsöversyn. - 9789198434903 ; , s. 22-24
-
Bokkapitel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)
|
|
| 2. |
- Adman, Per, et al.
(författare)
-
171 forskare: ”Vi vuxna bör också klimatprotestera”
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Dagens nyheter (DN debatt). - Stockholm. - 1101-2447.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- DN DEBATT 26/9. Vuxna bör följa uppmaningen från ungdomarna i Fridays for future-rörelsen och protestera eftersom det politiska ledarskapet är otillräckligt. Omfattande och långvariga påtryckningar från hela samhället behövs för att få de politiskt ansvariga att utöva det ledarskap som klimatkrisen kräver, skriver 171 forskare i samhällsvetenskap och humaniora.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Droste, Nils, et al.
(författare)
-
A global overview of biodiversity offsetting governance
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Management. - : Elsevier BV. - 0301-4797. ; 316
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- We analyze the development of biodiversity offsetting governance through a research-weaving approach. Here, we combine information from a systematized review of the literature and a qualitative analysis of the institutional developments in different world regions. Through this triangulation, we synthesize and map the different developmental streams of biodiversity offsetting governance around the globe over the last four decades. We find that there is a global mainstreaming of core principles such as avoidance, no-net-loss, and a mitigation hierarchy, as well as pooling and trading of offsets for unavoidable residual damages. Furthermore, we can observe an ongoing diversification of institutional designs and actors involved. Together this constitutes an emerging regime complex of biodiversity offsetting governance that comes with both a set of shared norms and a growing institutional complexity. While this may imply institutional innovation through diversification and policy experimentation, it also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of offsetting practices.
|
|
| 5. |
- Thoni, Terese, et al.
(författare)
-
Going beyond science-policy interaction? : An analysis of views among intergovernmental panel on climate change actors
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Critical Policy Studies. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1946-0171 .- 1946-018X. ; 15:1, s. 37-54
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Scholarly literature on science-policy interaction is typically dividedbetween advocating that science and policy need to be broughtcloser together or separated. In a recent article in this journal,Sundqvist and colleagues [Sundqvist et al. (2018) Oneworld ortwo? Science–policy interactions in the climate field, Critical PolicyStudies, 12:4, 448–468] proposed a typology that structures thisdebate. We use their typology to conduct a text analysis on empiri-cal material from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s(IPCC) internal consultation on its future. We find that science-policypractitioners are not as divided as the scholarly debate. Moreover,while the typology is a powerful tool in unearthing differences inopinion regarding science-policy interaction, it comes at the price ofreductionism. We suggest that a continuum, instead of separateboxes, helps visualize the large spectrum of ideas. However, regard-less of type of typology, it is important that the discussion goesbeyond the relationship between science and policy, and beyondan unconstructive battle between extremes. It is neither possiblenor normatively desirable to demarcate ‘science’, ‘policy’ and otheractors. Whilst this discussion is of central importance to the IPCC,greater focus should be put on its relationship with society.
|
|
| 6. |
- Thoni, Terese
(författare)
-
Making Blue Carbon : Coastal Ecosystems at the Science-Policy Interface
- 2019
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Climate change is a growing threat to mankind. The message from the scientific community is clear: we need to act fast and profoundly. The political response has, however, been slow. The likelihood that we will be able to meet our political climate goals only by reducing emissions is slim. Meanwhile is the interest around ways to capture carbon dioxide that has already been emitted on the rise. In addition to technical solutions currently being tested, ecosystems can be used in a similar vein. Most attention has been on forests. In this thesis I look at a less well-known way to mitigate climate change, namely to utilise the ability of coastal ecosystems, such as mangrove forests, salt marshes and seagrass meadows, to sequester and store carbon, or to protect existing ecosystems to avoid emissions. The political interest in this so called “Blue Carbon” has increased over the past decade, and it is now governed through, inter alia, national carbon inventories and carbon markets. More specifically, in this thesis I explore the “making of” Blue Carbon – how the carbon associated with coastal ecosystems is made knowable and governable in the context of climate change mitigation at the global level. Informed by social and environmental science, I draw on a range of methods, including participatory observations at the United Nations climate change negotiations, interviews with experts, and qualitative document analysis, to present new perspectives on Blue Carbon and how it is governed.To understand the making of Blue Carbon it is, I argue, necessary to situate it in relation to broader processes within and related to climate science and policy. I identify three logics of the climate regime – the global, scientific and neoliberal logics – that I find useful for this purpose. I describe how these logics are articulated and reproduced in material, institutional, and discursive dimensions of the climate regime. I find that science, and more precisely a specific type of science, plays a particularly important role in the making of Blue Carbon, and in the context of climate policy generally. In the context of coastal ecosystems, science is needed to know the size of carbon stocks, which in turn is the foundation for creating policy mechanisms. I show that the making of Blue Carbon is indeed rendering coastal ecosystems governable in the context of climate change, which in turn opens the door for new governance mechanisms and funding sources. However, my study also reveals the complexities around measuring carbon in these ecosystems, and the challenges associated with collapsing something as dynamic as an ecosystem into a standardised protocol. This in turn raises questions regarding the possibility to address important uncertainties embedded in the making of Blue Carbon, not least given that these ecosystems are also vulnerable to the effects of climate change. There is a risk that an exaggerated focus on carbon services makes other values invisible, which could lead to a devaluation of these important ecosystems. There is also a risk of creating competition between ecosystems, with negative consequences for their management and wellbeing. I argue that these risks merit further consideration. A broader, more diverse, and more inclusive approach to knowledge-making in this context could be a first step, not least to be able to bring forward alternative ways of governing coastal ecosystems, or make more of the alternatives that already exist, depending on the desired outcome.
|
|
