I work as a project coordinator in the EU project Ineqint, which focuses on studying equality and integration. Previously, I worked at the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), where I was

The usual way of thinking about climate change is that the present generation will have to make large sacrifices in order to reduce emissions. For example, by consuming less goods and services. This is one reason why cutting emissions is so hard. But what if there is a way to get climate change under control where no one needs to sacrifice?

A Climate Bank to Combat Climate Change: A conversation between John Broome & Gustaf Arrhenius

Reducing emissions and combatting climate change now will be of huge value for the coming generations. In principle this value could be used to fund the huge green investment loans needed today in ord

Future generations

Climate change is the biggest challenge of our time, and in this theme there is a focus on future generations and their living conditions. We aim to examine among other things climate ethics, sustainable development, green growth, obstacles to climate action and social dilemmas.

How should we value future lives when making decisions? This question is directly relevant to for example prioritisation in health care, population control, climate change, and existential risk (the survival of animal species and humanity).

Mark Jaccard, Professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University, VancouverAbstractThere are obvious reasons why for three decades most jurisdictions have failPublic surveys and observation of real-world GHG reduction successes suggest that explicit carbon pricing (carbon tax and perhaps cap-and-trade) can be substantially more politically difficult than certain regulatory policies for shifting the energy system on to a deep decarbonization trajectory. Nonetheless, some people have argued that carbon pricing is an essential GHG reduction policy, suggesting that sincere politicians must do carbon pricing no matter how politically difficult. But the claim that carbon pricing is essential is factually incorrect. Deep decarbonization can be achieved entirely with regulations. Regulatory policies are unlikely to be as economically efficient as carbon pricing. But not all regulations perform identically when it comes to the economic-efficiency criterion. Flexible regulations have some attributes that make them low cost relative to regulations that require adoption of specific technologies.This talk provides evidence that assesses both the relative economic efficiency of policies and their relative political acceptability. The findings reported here suggest that some kinds of flexible regulations can perform significantly better than explicit carbon pricing in terms of relative political cost per tonne reduced while performing only marginally worse in terms of economic cost per tonne reduced. Presumably, this type of trade-off information could be of value to politicians who sincerely want deep decarbonization but would also like to be rewarded with re-election so that they and competing politicians see the value in ambitious and sustained GHG reduction efforts.

A couple of weeks ago it was decided that the Institute for Futures Studies will support the project International Panel on Social Progress. It is a large project with high ambitions that mobilizes se