ALBERT

Description: We study the impact of California’s cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions in the electricity and industrial sectors. We use US state-level panel data covering the period 2005–2019 and apply the synthetic control method to construct an optimal counterfactual for per capita emissions in each sector. In our experiment, emissions in the power sector fall below counterfactual emissions by 48%. In the industrial sector, the state’s emissions are 6% higher than those of the synthetic control unit by the end of the observation period. Thus, cap-and-trade failed to deliver decarbonization across both sectors. While the abatement in the power sector was facilitated by complementary policies and driven by a switch from natural gas to renewables, California’s policy mix has disincentivized emission reductions in the industrial sector.

Description: As climate targets tighten, all countries must transition toward a renewable electricity system, but conflicts about generation and infrastructure deployment impede transition progress. Although the triggers of opposition are well studied, what people want remains understudied. We survey citizen preferences for a renewable electricity future through a conjoint analysis among 4,103 individuals in Denmark, Portugal, Poland, and Germany. With our study we go beyond the Likert scale survey approach specifically seeking trade-offs and contextualized preferences for regional electricity system designs. We show the importance of identifying both the ‘‘least preferred’’ and ‘‘most preferred’’ solutions and highlighting the possibility of identifying very different systems with identical utility. Lastly, our research actively bridges the divide between social aspects and techno-economic modeling, promoting their integration. We show that the most preferred system design in all four countries is a predominantly regional one, based on rooftop solar, communally owned, and not relying on transmission expansion.

Description: This chapter focuses on the maintenance of waste infrastructures in urban areas, arguing that waste infrastructures and their maintenance should be made more visible to allow for a more extensive, ethical engagement with waste. This contribution claims that cities need to approach the (re)design of municipal waste infrastructures through dynamic maintenance and reflexive repair, wherein waste, repair and maintenance are understood as discursive processes. Waste infrastructures and their maintenance are mostly invisible in daily interactions in cities in High-Income Countries, despite the diversities in waste practices, such as collection and processing. Invisibility is an intended outcome of the design and operation of these infrastructures, stemming from a nineteenth-century waste imaginary called ‘the tidy city’. Current municipal waste infrastructures are kept invisible, upholding beliefs and practices that disvalue waste. While visions have been proposed that challenge this disvalue, few of them have been able to materialise in stratified municipal waste management systems. This engagement is seen as a first step in challenging modern notions of dirt and waste. Visibility is a (new) design criterion for municipal waste infrastructures, a criterion that the authors relate to waste-affirming beliefs and practices, elaborating on anthropological perspectives on dirt and waste.

Description: Various analyses show that right-wing populist parties (RWP) tend to be sceptical of climate science and policy. This points to a blank space in the dominant analyses of populism: their blindness towards society-nature relations. This paper aims to develop an approach grounded in Cultural Political Economy (CPE) that can be used to decipher the mediation of RWP within the context of economic, political, and cultural developments as well as society–nature relations. Against this background, the argument is developed that RWP is concerned not only with countering migration and processes of societal liberalisation, but also with defending an existing way of life that is firmly rooted in the destructive appropriation of nature. As a current of right-wing politics, RWP defends the imperial mode of living by expressing scepticism towards the existence of anthropogenic climate change. The paper contributes to a better understanding of the political economy of RWP by linking the dimensions of social domination with the appropriation of nature.

Description: Little consideration has been given to the process of technological change in political theory. Given that ideas about this process play an important role in many strands of normative political thought, and are especially crucial to climate change politics, this is a remarkable oversight. It risks political theory being irrelevant to climate change mitigation. The implications of this oversight for political theory are explored here through an analysis of the liberalism-ecologism debate. The article argues that attempts to green liberalism – to move it beyond environmentalism – cannot succeed while liberalism is silent about technological change. More broadly, given that most political theory traditions make claims about technological change, claims crucial to their worldviews and normative goals, it argues that much more theorisation of the concept is necessary. Especially now that they shape how the world understands climate change mitigation, contests over the meaning of technological change are intensely political contests. Political theory needs to get much more involved.

Description: Deep-sea mining (DSM) will be highly energy-intensive and produce myriad emissions, including greenhouse gases (GHG). By and large, the emissions arising from DSM activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction (‘The Area’) do not yet fall within the remit of any international agreement and are thus unregulated. To close this gap, two incisive steps need to be taken. First, States must decide under which international regime(s) they want to regulate GHG-emissions from DSM operations (forum choice). Second, they must select the means to mitigate emissions (instrument choice). Forum and instrument choice should be decided in tandem as forum choice tends to influence instrument choice and vice versa. We explore the various possibilities and argue that the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is the most suitable forum, as it could implement a harmonized and targeted approach for this unique sector. We recommend that the ISA commission a technical study to assess the amount of GHG emissions expected to arise from DSM activities in the Area and evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing and enforcing various policy instruments. Such an exercise is both urgently needed and timely, particularly as the ISA is currently formulating the rules for mineral exploitation.

Description: This paper addresses the need for effective and fair codes of conduct for public-good-oriented transdisciplinary processes. These processes are characterized by the production of socially robust orientations (SoROs) through mutual learning and developing better action strategies by merging knowledge from practice and science. We argue that transdisciplinary processes should be governed by an appropriate social rule system that comprises codes of conduct for collaboration (CCC) in transdisciplinary discourses. In our view, participants in a transdisciplinary process must (1) follow rules of mutuality between science and practice (accepting the otherness of the other) and (2) enable the use and integration of knowledge from science and practice (e.g., through responsibility and/or co-leadership at all levels of a project). This requires (3) a protected discourse arena similar to an expanded Chatham House Rule that facilitates the generation of groundbreaking, novel ideas for sustainable transition. In transdisciplinary processes, CCC are based on these three perspectives and can be explicitly introduced yet require cultural and situational adaptations. Many aspects of transdisciplinary processes, such as legal status (e.g., who owns the data generated, whether it is a group or formal organization), are often unclear and need further investigation.

Description: Sustainability research emphasizes the importance of intervening with both individual and organizational behaviours as well as the systems that shape them to create sustainability transformations. However, to date there is a lack of studies that bridge the divide between small case-based interventions and global systems at broader scales, and the complex interactions across scales and processes. This paper works with a leverage points framework to consider systems transformation. It focuses on four individual sustainability interventions in the textile sector and explores how they are embedded within a complex set of nested systems, and how these connected systems shape the transformative potential of the interventions. By using an onion metaphor for systems with several onion layers representing the current textile sector and its multiple connected and nested systems, we integrate and reflect across four in-depth case studies, conducted over a period of 3 years, using a range of empirical research approaches. The findings show that the studied interventions all target multiple deep leverage points within their target systems of production and consumption. All are limited in fulfilling their transformative potential by a range of barriers that we trace back to the economic and policy and regulation systems that they are embedded within. The economic system enforces a paradigm of consumption-based growth, and the policy and regulation system fails to either support change, or restrict unsustainable behaviours. Our findings demonstrate the need to think across systems scales to understand leverage points and transformative change; our nested systems approach is one way to do so. We outline two promising pathways for sustainability transformations: (1) focussing on how to create spillover effects of favourable interventions in sub-systems to push outwards against the constraints of the current policy and regulation, and economic systems; and (2) by targeting actors and interventions within the policy and regulation and economic systems to create change in the paradigms and design they embody and enforce on the systems nested within them.

Description: In response to the climate and biodiversity crisis, the number of transdisciplinary research projects in which researchers partner with sustainability initiatives to foster transformative change is increasing globally. To enable and catalyze substantial transformative change, transformative transdisciplinary research (TTDR) is urgently needed to provide knowledge and guidance for actions. We review prominent discussions on TTDR and draw on our experiences from research projects in the Global South and North. Drawing on this, we identify key gaps and stimulate debate on how sustainability researchers can enable and catalyze transformative change by advancing five priority areas: clarify what TTDR is, conduct meaningful people-centric research, unpack how to act at deep leverage points, improve engagement with diverse knowledge systems, and explore potentials and risks of global digitalization for transformative change.

Description: Governments and international organizations are increasingly using public funds to mobilize and leverage private finance for climate projects in the Global South. An important international organization in the effort to mobilize the private sector for financing climate mitigation and adaptation in the Global South is the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF was established under the UNFCCC in 2010 and is the world’s largest dedicated multilateral climate fund. The GCF differs from other intergovernmental institutions through its fund-wide inclusion of the private sector, ranging from project design and financing to project implementation. In this paper, we investigate private sector involvement in the GCF through a qualitative exploratory research approach. We ask two main questions: Do private sector projects deliver on their ambitious goals? What are the tensions, if any, between private sector engagement and other principles of the GCF (most importantly the principles of country ownership, mitigation/adaptation balance, transparency, and civil society participation)? This paper argues that private sector involvement does not provide an easy way out of the financial constraints of public climate financing. We show that the GCF fails to deliver on its ambitious goals in private sector engagement for a number of reasons. First, private sector interest in GCF projects is thus far underwhelming. Second, there are strong tradeoffs between private sector projects and the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) principles of country ownership, transparency, and civil society participation. Third, private sector involvement is creating a mitigation bias within the GCF portfolio. Fourth, while the private sector portfolio is good at channeling funds to particularly vulnerable countries, it does so mostly through large multi-country projects with weak country ownership. Fifth, there is a danger that private climate financing based on loans and equity might add to the debt burden of developing countries, destabilize financial markets, and further increase dependency on the Global North.