Mathilda Eriksson is defending her thesis on May 26th. When asked to describe her thesis, she explains:
“This thesis is about understanding the role of the forest in global climate policy. Forests are a key determinant of global atmospheric carbon and, hence, of climate change. Accordingly, to achieve an efficient climate policy, it is important to incorporate forest carbon mitigation strategies into global climate policy efforts. To this end, this thesis constructs two global frameworks, one single region and one multi-regional, that allows us to investigate how climate mitigation strategies can be enhanced by using forests optimally.
Read Mathildas thesis: The Role of the Forest in Climate Policy
Shanshan Zhang specialises in production theory and applied econometrics. Her thesis “Industrial firm performance and the role of climate policy“ focuses on energy efficiency, energy and climate policy and also corporate strategic management. Her defence will take place on the 27th May.
Energy is vital to the economy, but the consequences of its use are also potentially harmful for the environment. One solution to keep the economy running while being environmentally friendly is improvement of energy efficiency. It could be an affordable choice for reducing energy consumption and mitigation. Thus, it is interesting to analyse the impacts of energy efficiency determinants, and to investigate whether energy efficiency improvements would reduce environmental impacts as well as foster productivity growth. Read Shanshans thesis: Energy efficiency and firm performance
Katarina Östberg’s thesis will deal with topics like distributional effects of environmental policies, accuracy of benefit transfer, and the value of improving the water quality status. One of the articles included in her thesis is “Non-market valuation of the coastal environment – Uniting political aims, ecological and economic knowledge”.
In SvD, February 13th 2016, the CERE professors Bengt Kriström and Per-Olov Johansson questions the investment in high-speed rail between Stockholm, Göteborg and, Malmö. They claim that the competition from aviation, the population base and the negligible effects on the climate goes against the investment.
”Only the high-speed rails between Paris and Lyon and two Japanese rails are profitable as far as we have been able to tell from literature, none of them relevant for Sweden. High-speed rails seem to mostly be about building monuments of pure Pharaonic proportions. Given the significant challenges that Sweden are facing, the rails could even supplant extremely keen infrastructure and other investments. Despite everything, even the Swedish resources are limited.”
Read the full article on SvD (only in Swedish).
On the 8th of February 2016 the CERE Advisory Board, Board of Directors and Management met up to discuss CERE relevant issues.
CERE's Advisory Board for Strategic Issues. From the left: Torbjörn Fagerström, Anders Kristoffersson, Mårten Larsson, Yvonne Fredriksson, Lars Bergman (Kjell Jansson is missing from the photo).
Costs for a Sweden free of fossil fuels could outweigh the benefits and the money perhaps better spent in other countries, Bengt Kriström and Per-Olov Johansson, CERE, claims in a retort on SvD, January 2nd.
Kriström and Johansson questions whether reign supreme is the way for Sweden to go when it comes to the climate issue. Perhaps the 100 billion SEK that it would cost for a fossil-free Sweden would be better spent in countries where it would be less costly to reduce emissions and thereby also helping people in poverty.
Read the full article (only in Swedish) ”Vår fördel har varit små utsläpp i elproduktionen” published online January 2nd, 2016.
Seven researchers gives the government a few cornerstones in order to reduce the car emissions in Sweden. From an article in SvD December 10th 2015. Only in Swedish
Kelly de Bruin, an environmental economist at CERE, calls for a more realistic meeting in Paris.
Some 170 countries submitted their emission-reducing pledges ahead of the Paris COP meeting. These pledges show that we overshoot the 2-degree target with at best 0.5 or 0.7 degrees. Kelly, an expert on calculating how the economy and climate change affects one another, urges for a more realistic dialogue: - Politicians keep talking about 2 degrees, which is not very viable anymore, and the actual commitments they talk about will lead to at best 2.7 degrees temperature change in 2100. There is a mismatch of the dialogue on the goal of the negotiations (2 degree limit) and the actual negotiation commitments (2.7 degrees).
At the 4th Workshop on Non-Market Valuation, WONV, a best paper award will be launched and the winner will thereafter be invited to present their paper at CERE.