AMBIO

, Volume 41, Supplement 1, pp 3–11 | Cite as

Socio-Economic Research in Support of Climate Policy Development: Mistra’s Research Program Clipore

  • Peringe Grennfelt
  • Bo Kjellén
  • Björn-Ola Linnér
  • Lars Zetterberg
Article
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

Mistra’s Climate Policy Research Program, Clipore, is one of the largest research programs directed to support international climate policy development, involving research groups in Sweden, Norway, United States and India. It has been running from 2004 to 2011 with a budget of more than 100 MSEK (15 M USD). The paper briefly describes the program and its outcomes in relation to climate policy development. Discussion focuses on how the program has been able to be in the front of and include the development of emissions trading systems in Europe and the United States and how the program has been able to follow and produce inputs to the agenda of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The paper also discusses how the program has managed to present its outcomes and maintain an active dialogue with the various stakeholders. The paper emphasises options and obstacles in the communication between science and policy.

Keywords

Climate policy Science-policy interactions Climate policy research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Mistra Foundation’s Climate Policy Research Program (Clipore). Thanks also to three anonymous referees for valuable comments.

References

  1. Atteridge, A., M.K. Shrivastava, N. Pahuja, and H. Upadhyay. 2012. Climate policy in India: What shapes international, national and state policy? Ambio 41. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0242-5.
  2. Baer, P., T. Athanasiou, S. Kartha, and E. Kemp-Benedict. 2009. Greenhouse development rights: A proposal for a fair global climate treaty. Ethics, Place & Environment 12: 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buhr, K., and A. Hansson. 2010. Capturing the stories of corporations: A comparison of media debates on carbon capture and storage in Norway and Sweden. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions 21: 336–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, W.C., and N.M. Dickson. 2003. Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 8059–8061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission. 2003. Directive on establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community. Directive 2003/87. European Council and European Parliament 13 Oct 2003.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer, C., A. Torvanger, M.K. Shrivastava, T. Sterner, and P. Stigson. 2012. How should support for climate-friendly technologies be designed? Ambio 41. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0239-0.
  7. Gode, J., E. Särnholm, L. Zetterberg, J. Arnell, and T. Zetterberg. 2010. Pathways towards a decarbonised Swedish economy in 2050 and its implications on energy demand, IVL report B-1955.Google Scholar
  8. Hjerpe, M., and B.-O. Linnér. 2010. The functions of side events in global climate change governance. Climate Policy 10: 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ICSU. 2002. Science and technology for sustainable development. Consensus Report and Background Document Mexico City Synthesis Conference, International Council for Science. Series on Science for Sustainable Development No. 9.Google Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S., and B. Wynne. 1998. Science and decisionmaking. In Human choice and climate change volume one, ed. S. Rayner, and E.L. Malone, 1–87. Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Press.Google Scholar
  11. Karlsson, C., C. Parker, M. Hjerpe, and B.-O. Linnér. 2011. Looking for leaders: Perceptions of climate change leadership among climate change negotiation participants. Global Environmental Politics 11: 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karlsson, C., M. Hjerpe, C. Parker, and B-O. Linnér. 2012. The legitimacy of leadership in international climate change negotiations. Ambio 41. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0240-7.
  13. Kartha, S., P. Baer, T. Athanasiou, and E. Kemp-Benedict. 2009. The greenhouse development rights framework. Climate and Development 1: 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kates, R.W., W.C. Clark, R. Corell, J.M. Hall, C.C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J.J. McCarthy, J. Schellnhuber, et al. 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292: 641–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klein, R.J.T. 2010. Linking adaptation and development finance: A policy dilemma not addressed in Copenhagen. Climate and Development 2: 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lahsen, M., and C.A. Nobre. 2007. Challenges of connecting international science and local level sustainability efforts: The case of the Large-Scale Biosphere–Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia. Environmental Science and Policy 10: 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lidskog, R., and G. Sundqvist. 2002. The role of science in environmental regimes: The case of LRTAP. European Journal of International Relations 8: 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Linnér, B.-O., and M. Jacob. 2005. From Stockholm to Kyoto and beyond: A review of the globalisation of global warming policy and north–south relations. Globalizations 2: 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Linnér, B.-O., and N. Pahuja. 2012. A registry for nationally appropriate mitigation actions: goals, outcomes and institutional requisites. Ambio 41. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0241-6.
  20. Lövbrand, E. 2011. Co-producing European climate science and policy. A cautionary note on the funding and making of useful knowledge. Science and Public Policy 38: 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mobjörk, M., and B.-O. Linnér. 2005. Sustainable funding?: How research funding frame science for sustainable development. Environmental Science & Policy 9: 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morris, D.F., and N. Krishnan. 2012. Mapping adaptation opportunities and activities in an interactive atlas. Ambio 41. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0244-3.
  23. Parker, C., and C. Karlsson. 2010. Climate change and the European Union’s leadership moment: An inconvenient truth? Journal of Common Market Studies 48: 923–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Persson, Å., R.J.T. Klein, C. Kehler Siebert, A. Atteridge, B. Müller, J. Hoffmaister, M. Lazarus, and T. Takama. 2009. Adaptation finance under a Copenhagen agreed outcome. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute.Google Scholar
  25. Raes, F., and R. Swart. 2007. Climate assessment: What`s next. Science 318: 386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sarewitz, D., and R. Pielke Jr. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling the supply of and demand for knowledge. Environmental Science and Policy 10: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sterner, T. 2007. Gasoline taxes a useful instrument for climate policy. Energy Policy 35: 3194–3202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Storbjörk, S. 2007. Governing climate adaptation in the local arena: Challenges of risk-management and planning in Sweden. Local Environment 12: 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. US Congress. 2009. H.R. 2454: American clean energy and security act of 2009. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2454.
  30. Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos report. Available at: www.demos.co.uk/files/Seethroughsciencefinal.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2011.
  31. Wråke, M., D. Burtraw, Å. Löfgren, and L.Zetterberg. 2012. What have we learnt from the European Union’s emissions trading system? Ambio 41. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0237-2.
  32. Ye, Q., and G. Sun. 2006. Climate change and its impacts on creeping environmental problems in China (in Chinese). In Creeping environmental problems in China, ed. Qian Ye. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Zetterberg, L., M. Wråke, T. Sterner, C. Fischer, and C. Burtraw. 2012. Short-run allocation of emissions allowances and long-term goals for climate policy. Ambio 41. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0238-1.

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peringe Grennfelt
    • 1
  • Bo Kjellén
    • 2
  • Björn-Ola Linnér
    • 3
    • 5
  • Lars Zetterberg
    • 4
  1. 1.IVL Swedish Environmental Research InstituteGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Stockholm Environmental InstituteStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research and Water and Environmental StudiesLinköping University, Nya Kåkenhus, Linköping UniversityNorrköpingSweden
  4. 4.IVL Swedish Environmental Research InstituteStockholmSweden
  5. 5.Department of Thematic StudiesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations