Suchergebnisse

Over the last 10 years, the concept of a global 'carbon budget' of allowable CO(2) emissions has become ubiquitous in climate science and policy. Since it was brought to prominence by the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the carbon budget has changed how climate change is enacted as an issue of public concern, from determining the optimal rate of future emissions to establishing a fixed limit for how much emissions should be allowed before they must be stopped altogether. Exploring the emergence of the carbon budget concept, this article shows how the assessment process of the IPCC has offered scientific experts the means to modify how the climate issue is problematized, and discusses the implications of this 'modifying-work' for the politics of climate change. It finds that the 'modified climate issue' must be seen as an outcome of the ordinary work within established scientific and political institutions, and the agency these institutions afford scientists to enact the issue differently. On this basis, it argues that the case of the carbon budget holds important insights not only for the relationship between climate science and policy, but also for the pragmatist literature on 'issue formation' in STS.

The report provides an up-to-date account of the debates about how Norway can best handle its paradoxical position between oil dependence and climate leadership ambitions. Historically, political actors have sought to reconcile Norway's goals of climate leadership and petroleum production by separating climate and petroleum policymaking into separate domains. Over the last ten years, however, this separation has increasingly been challenged, leading to a marked increase in political controversy around the future of the Norwegian oil and gas industry. The report gives an overview of the historical background for Norwegian petroleum and climate policy, and details more recent changes in public attitudes, political fault lines, and more specific policy changes currently under discussion. By focusing on the case of Norway, the report aims to inform broader debates about the relationship between fossil fuel extraction and climate policy, as this relationship is attracting increasing attention from climate policy analysts and policymakers internationally. ; publishedVersion

Over the last 10 years, the concept of a global 'carbon budget' of allowable CO2 emissions has become ubiquitous in climate science and policy. Since it was brought to prominence by the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the carbon budget has changed how climate change is enacted as an issue of public concern, from determining the optimal rate of future emissions to establishing a fixed limit for how much emissions should be allowed before they must be stopped altogether. Exploring the emergence of the carbon budget concept, this article shows how the assessment process of the IPCC has offered scientific experts the means to modify how the climate issue is problematized, and discusses the implications of this 'modifying-work' for the politics of climate change. It finds that the 'modified climate issue' must be seen as an outcome of the ordinary work within established scientific and political institutions, and the agency these institutions afford scientists to enact the issue differently. On this basis, it argues that the case of the carbon budget holds important insights not only for the relationship between climate science and policy, but also for the pragmatist literature on 'issue formation' in STS. ; publishedVersion

Over the last 10 years, the concept of a global 'carbon budget' of allowable CO2 emissions has become ubiquitous in climate science and policy. Since it was brought to prominence by the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the carbon budget has changed how climate change is enacted as an issue of public concern, from determining the optimal rate of future emissions to establishing a fixed limit for how much emissions should be allowed before they must be stopped altogether. Exploring the emergence of the carbon budget concept, this article shows how the assessment process of the IPCC has offered scientific experts the means to modify how the climate issue is problematized, and discusses the implications of this 'modifying-work' for the politics of climate change. It finds that the 'modified climate issue' must be seen as an outcome of the ordinary work within established scientific and political institutions, and the agency these institutions afford scientists to enact the issue differently. On this basis, it argues that the case of the carbon budget holds important insights not only for the relationship between climate science and policy, but also for the pragmatist literature on 'issue formation' in STS.

Our understanding of climate change is dominated by quantified scientific knowledge, with science and politics usually seen as operating separately and autonomously from one another. By investigating a particular fact box in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), this paper challenges the assumption that science and policy can be clearly delineated. The so-called "Bali Box" gained a prominent role in negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen Conference in 2009, as it was widely seen as providing a "fixed point" – a quantified scientific answer to the question of equitable effort-sharing between North and South. This understanding of the Bali Box triggered a backlash, however, when the hybrid character of the box as an assemblage of science, political considerations and moral judgements became evident to actors in the negotiations. The paper employs the notion of boundary objects to analyse the history of the Bali Box, and argues that climate politics will benefit from a richer understanding of the interplay between science and policy. Moving beyond characterizations that place the Bali Box on either side of a clear boundary between the scientific and the political, we suggest focusing instead on what the Box as a hybrid product is doing, i.e. how it simplifies and quantifies, what it covers and what it leaves outside. ; acceptedVersion

Norges internasjonale klimapolitikk har alltid hatt som målsetting å oppnå et mest mulig enhetlig globalt klimaregime. Parisavtalen reflekterer i stedet – og bidrar til å forsterke – et fragmentert klimaregime med et mylder av nye samarbeidsformer mellom land. I denne artikkelen trekker vi frem tre trender som preger det nye klimaregimet: et skifte fra klima- til grønn industripolitikk; økende spenning mellom klima- og handelspolitikk; og tettere sammenkobling mellom klima- og petroleumspolitikk. Vi viser hvordan nye klimaklubber både lager nye spilleregler og oppstår som motsvar til disse. Vi ønsker med dette å vise hvordan et fragmentert klimaregime fører til nye rammevilkår og utfordringer for norsk klimapolitikk. Klimaklubbkvalene omfatter både problemstillinger knyttet til hvem Norge skal samarbeide med og hvordan slikt samarbeid skal formaliseres, men også konsekvensene av å samarbeide med noen fremfor andre.
Abstract in English:Norway's Climate Club QuandaryNorway's international climate policy has always aimed at building a unitary global climate regime. However, the Paris Agreement reflects and accelerates the fragmentation of the climate regime and has been accompanied by the emergence of a myriad of new climate initiatives between countries. This article highlights three trends that characterize the emerging climate regime: a shift from climate to green industrial policy; rising tension between climate and trade policy and pressure to merge climate and petroleum policy. We illustrate how climate clubs both create new rules within the climate regime and are formed in response to such rules. Navigating this new international landscape will be a central challenge for Norwegian climate policy moving forward. Norway's climate club quandary in this context implies choices between different political strategies and competing interests and with possible consequences for what type of climate regime Norway will contribute to. The climate club quandary is both related whom Norway seeks to collaborate with and the formalization of such collaboration, but also the consequences of collaborating with some countries and not with others.

Policy relevance is the raison d'être for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), yet few studies have analysed what the concept entails, not least from the perspective of key target groups for the IPCC. We present a framework which enables analysis of how different actor strategies (heating up and cooling down) contribute to shape relevance-making in specific political situations when IPCC knowledge is interpreted and used. Drawing on empirical evidence from the reception and use of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) across three policy making levels, the paper demonstrates different examples of creating policy relevance. First, the paper analyses the origin of SR15 and the failed attempts to formally acknowledge SR15 in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. Second, it investigates how SR15 has been used to develop and legitimize the EU net-zero target and the European Green Deal. Third, the paper demonstrates how SR15 has been used both for legitimizing and challenging climate policy at the national level, using the example of Norway. In sum, the reception of SR15 demonstrates that while IPCC outputs have resulted in controversy at the international level, they have been highly relevant at regional and national levels. The analysis shows that policy relevance is context-dependent and indirect—created through processes involving many actors, institutions, and types of knowledge. Situating these findings within the larger shift in the international climate regime implied by the Paris Agreement, the paper concludes with a set of empirically grounded recommendations for how the IPCC may approach the goal of policy relevance post-Paris. ; publishedVersion

Policy relevance is the raison d'être for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), yet few studies have analysed what the concept entails, not least from the perspective of key target groups for the IPCC. We present a framework which enables analysis of how different actor strategies (heating up and cooling down) contribute to shape relevance-making in specific political situations when IPCC knowledge is interpreted and used. Drawing on empirical evidence from the reception and use of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) across three policy making levels, the paper demonstrates different examples of creating policy relevance. First, the paper analyses the origin of SR15 and the failed attempts to formally acknowledge SR15 in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. Second, it investigates how SR15 has been used to develop and legitimize the EU net-zero target and the European Green Deal. Third, the paper demonstrates how SR15 has been used both for legitimizing and challenging climate policy at the national level, using the example of Norway. In sum, the reception of SR15 demonstrates that while IPCC outputs have resulted in controversy at the international level, they have been highly relevant at regional and national levels. The analysis shows that policy relevance is context-dependent and indirect—created through processes involving many actors, institutions, and types of knowledge. Situating these findings within the larger shift in the international climate regime implied by the Paris Agreement, the paper concludes with a set of empirically grounded recommendations for how the IPCC may approach the goal of policy relevance post-Paris.

Yamin and Depledge (2004) argue that the UNFCCC regime is characterised by formal and informal coalitions, alliances, and political groups. Blaxekjær and Nielsen (2014) have demonstrated how new groups since COP15 have transformed the narrative positions and negotiations space in the UNFCCC, creating bridges as well as new trenches between North and South in relation to the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility. As the UNFCCC regime readjusts after COP21, these new narrative positions and negotiations space should be re-examined. Through original data such as official statements from groups, observations at UN climate conferences (2011-2015), and interviews with delegates and experts, the paper analyses the narrative position of the Like Minded group of Developing Countries (LMDC), an influential political group under the UNFCCC established in 2012. Following Blaxekjær and Nielsen's (2014) policy-oriented narrative approach to IR the paper analyses LMDC's identity, the problems identified by LMDC and the solutions to these problems, and the paper identifies five central characteristics of the dominant LMDC narrative. The analysis also touches upon what narrative techniques are used in constructing the LMDC identity. This framework reveals the embeddedness of narratives in practice as they unfold in the formation of new alliances and ruptures in old ones. This paper contributes to the emerging Narrative in IR research agenda with a policy-oriented model of analysis. The paper also contributes to the broader research agenda on the post-Paris UNFCCC regime, and argues that as long as CBDR/RC is a major unresolved issue – an essentially contested concept – as long will the LMDC play a prominent role in the UNFCCC regime.

The Sustainable Edge sector briefs summarize material climate-related risks and impacts to investors and lenders. The briefs cover key risks, emission sources, risk management and climate-related regulation relevant for each sector. They also provide key analyst questions that are important to consider in order to understand the climate risk of companies in the sector. The sector briefs are developed to support capacity building on climate risk in financial institutions. The six sectors covered are agriculture, aluminium, aquaculture, land transport, real estate, and shipping. The next section summarizes some key messages from each brief. ; publishedVersion