Search

In this Perspective article, we call for more scholarly attention to the politics of the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Specifically, we argue for a need to examine the emission pathways and decarbonised futures that are expressed and promoted through Science-Based Targets and what futures they render more likely in the pursuit of low-carbon transitions. We highlight how the SBTi's guidance material is characterized by a narrow and linear view of science (as input) as well as a similarly narrow portrayal of decarbonised futures (as outcome), despite the negotiated character of target-setting and the open-endedness of transitions. The SBTi thus currently tends towards obscuring the politics embedded within it and promoting an incumbent-driven transition, thereby legitimizing a transition shaped by some of the world's largest corporations and, in this sense, shielding them from democratic control. This argument illustrates the need for more scholarly engagement with the politics of knowledge that informs the SBTi and its governance framework. On a broader note, it highlights the need for continued critical engagement with corporate climate governance as it develops and takes on more ambitious forms.

Carbon dioxide removal is rapidly becoming a key focus in climate research and politics. This is raising concerns of “moral hazard” or “mitigation deterrence,” that is, the risk that promises of and/or efforts to pursue carbon removal end up reducing or delaying near-term mitigation efforts. Some, however, contest this risk, arguing that it is overstated or lacking evidence. In this review, we explore the reasons behind the disagreement in the literature. We unpack the different ways in which moral hazard/mitigation deterrence (MH/MD) is conceptualized and examine how these conceptualizations inform assessments of MH/MD risks. We find that MH/MD is a commonly recognized feature of modeled mitigation pathways but that conclusions as to the real-world existence of MH/MD diverge on individualistic versus structural approaches to examining it. Individualistic approaches favor narrow conceptualizations of MH/MD, which tend to exclude the wider political-economic contexts in which carbon removal emerges. This exclusion limits the value and relevance of such approaches. We argue for a broader understanding of what counts as evidence of delaying practices and propose a research agenda that complements theoretical accounts of MH/MD with empirical studies of the political-economic structures that may drive mitigation deterrence dynamics.

Inequality and inequity have been mainly overlooked in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), even though the ARs are frequently used in negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This inconsistency has recently been scrutinized in Kanitkar et al. (2022) and Hickel and Slamersak (2022), documenting significant and persistent between-region disparities in energy, consumption, and CO2 emissions in the climate scenarios used in the AR6. The disparities constitute a discrepancy between the intentions of equity and equality in the UNFCCC framework, particularly between the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR&RC) and AR6 inequalities. In this thesis, I build on the criticisms from Kanitkar et al. (2022) and Hickel and Slamersak (2022) and investigate the inequalities further. I operationalize inequality quantitatively by adapting the Gini coefficient to 11 climate scenario variables such as CO2 emissions, GDP, and primary energy. Further, I utilize the Correlated Random Effects regression method to disentangle the effects on regional inequality from carbon sequestration, temperature categories, and the Integrated Assessment Models (IAM) on which the climate scenarios are based. While no unidirectional influence on inequality from the explanatory variables is found, there are systematic differences in the effect of IAM use, temperature category, and carbon sequestration on inequality. Ultimately, I discuss patterns and inconsistencies in the results of the analysis in relation to the intentions of the climate scenario framework. I argue that normative choices in the climate scenarios should be scrutinized and that reductions of inequality and inequity should be targeted along with emissions reductions in climate scenarios.

The Circular Economy (CE) has emerged as a promising solution to address global sustainability challenges, garnering significant attention. Denmark has positioned the CE as a key element of its sustainability agenda, making it an intriguing case study. However, the lack of a universally accepted definition for the CE has led to varying interpretations, sparking debates and disagreements among scholars and practitioners. This research aims to contribute to the existing body of literature by investigating the diverse interpretations of the CE within the Danish context. Specifically, the study focuses on examining four influential discourses that are deemed to be shaping the Danish CE landscape. The primary objective is to provide insights into the prevailing discourses, shed light on marginalized perspectives, and highlight unresolved issues surrounding the Danish CE. Drawing on the theory of social constructivism, which emphasizes the role of power dynamics in shaping societal "truths," this study employs qualitative and quantitative methodologies to critically analyse the identified discourses. The findings of this study demonstrate that all the dominant discourse in the Danish CE landscape has narrowed the focus primarily on waste management, depoliticizing the broader socio-economic governance aspects of the CE. Moreover, alternative viewpoints are often silenced, hindering discussions on new relationships with the natural world. By shedding light on the influential discourses, marginalized perspectives, and discursive silences, this research contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the Danish CE landscape. It highlights the need for broader socio-economic considerations and encourages the exploration of new perspectives and governance approaches for a more comprehensive and inclusive implementation of the CE.

Havneudvidelsen i Aarhus hviler på usikre præmisser, stor klimabelastning fra anlægsperioden og på ubæredygtige import- og forretningsgrundlag.

En klimapolitik der kun hviler på produktionssiden misser store klimapotentialer. Vi bliver derfor nødt til at huske forbrugssiden.

Danmark er et af de rigeste lande på kloden, og vi forbruger langt mere end resten af verden. Det er tid til, at vi sætter et mål for at få nedbragt de udledninger

Præmissen for klimapolitikken er, at den ikke må ændre på danskernes hverdag, og hvad vi forbruger. Den må heller ikke ændre på, hvilke industrier og arbejdspladser der er i Danmark.

Det er en falliterklæring, når to forskere fra Københavns Universitet skriver, at KU’s arbejde med at reducere sit klimaaftryk hæmmer forskningen. Hvis ikke universiteterne skal være med til at vise vejen, hvem skal så?

Ja, lyder svaret i ny bog, der dækker klima- og miljøkriser på grundig, vidende og konstruktiv vis.

Den styrende målsætning bag de mange danske klimaaftaler gennem de sidste to år, lever ikke op til klimalovens hensigt om, at Danmark skal være et foregangsland. Målet flugter heller ikke med princippet nedfældet i Parisaftalen om fælles, men differentieret ansvar mellem verdens lande i kampen for at begrænse den globale opvarmning til 1,5 grader.