The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and climate change targets

The nature and framing of climate targets in international politics has changed substantially since their early expressions in the 1980s. Here, we describe their evolution in five phases-from 'climate stabilization' to specific 'temperature outcomes'-co-evolving with wider climate politics and policy, modelling methods and scenarios, and technological promises (from nuclear power to carbon removal). We argue that this co-evolution has enabled policy prevarication, leaving mitigation poorly delivered, yet the technological promises often remain buried in the models used to inform policy. We conclude with a call to recognise and break this pattern to unleash more effective and just climate policy. This Perspective maps the history of climate targets and shows how the international goal of avoiding dangerous climate change has been reinterpreted in the light of new modelling methods and technological promises, ultimately enabling policy prevarication and limiting mitigation

Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance

Climate engineering (geoengineering) is rising up the global policy agenda, partly because international divisions pose deep challenges to collective climate mitigation. However, geoengineering is similarly subject to clashing interests, knowledge‐traditions and geopolitics. Modelling and technical assessments of geoengineering are facilitated by assumptions of a single global planner (or some as yet unspecified rational governance), but the practicality of international governance remains mostly speculative. Using evidence gathered from state delegates, climate activists and modellers, we reveal three underlying and clashing ‘geofutures’: an idealised understanding of governable geoengineering that abstracts from technical and political realities; a situated understanding of geoengineering emphasising power hierarchies in world order; and a pragmatist precautionary understanding emerging in spaces of negotiation such as UN Environment Assembly (UNEA). Set in the wider historical context of climate politics, the failure to agree even to a study of geoengineering at UNEA indicates underlying obstacles to global rules and institutions for geoengineering posed by divergent interests and underlying epistemic and political differences. Technology assessments should recognise that geoengineering will not be exempt from international fractures; that deployment of geoengineering through imposition is a serious risk; and that contestations over geofutures pertain, not only to climate policy, but also the future of planetary order

Multiomics analysis of rheumatoid arthritis yields sequence variants that have large effects on risk of the seropositive subset

Funding Information: Funding The study was funded by NORDFORSK (grant agreement no. 90825, project NORA), the Swedish Research Council (2018-02803), the Swedish innovation Agency (Vinnova), Innovationsfonden and The Research Council of Norway, Region Stockholm-Karolinska Institutet and Region Västerbotten (ALF), the Danish Rheumatism Association (R194-A6956), the Swedish Brain Foundation, Nils and Bibbi Jensens Foundation, the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Margaretha af Ugglas Foundation, the South-Eastern Heath Region of Norway, the Health Research Fund of Central Denmark Region, Region of Southern Denmark, the A.P. Moller Foundation for the Advancement of Medical Science, the Colitis-Crohn Foreningen, the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF15OC0016932), Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond, Beckett-Fonden, Augustinus Fonden, Knud and Edith Eriksens Mindefond, Laege Sofus Carl Emil Friis and Hustru Olga Doris Friis’ Legat, the Psoriasis Forskningsfonden, the University of Aarhus, the Danish Rheumatism Association (R194-A6956, A1923, A3037 and A3570 – www. gigtforeningen.dk), Region of Southern Denmark’s PhD Fund, 12/7725 (www.regionsyddanmark.dk) and the Department of Rheumatology, Frederiksberg Hospital (www.frederiksberghospital. dk). MoBa Genetics has been funded by the Research Council of Norway (#229624, #223273), South East and Western Norway Health Authorities, ERC AdG project SELECTionPREDISPOSED, Stiftelsen Kristian Gerhard Jebsen, Trond Mohn Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the University of Bergen. KB and SB acknowledge the Novo Nordisk Foundation (grant NNF14CC0001). Funding Information: competing financial interests as employees. OAA is a consultant to HealthLytix. The following coauthors report the following but unrelated to the current report: Karolinska Institutet, with JA as principal investigator, has entered into agreements with the following entities, mainly but not exclusively for safety monitoring of rheumatology immunomodulators: Abbvie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis and Sanofi, unrelated to the present study. SB has ownerships in Intomics A/S, Hoba Therapeutics Aps, Novo Nordisk A/S, Lundbeck A/S and managing board memberships in Proscion A/S and Intomics A/S. BG has received research grants from AbbVie, Bristol Myers-Squibb and Pfizer; OH has received research grants from AbbVie, Novartis and Pfizer, DVJ has received speaker and consultation fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, AGL has received speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB; and CT has received consulting fees from Roche, speaker fees from Abbvie, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Nordic Drugs, Pfizer and Roche, and an unrestricted grant from Bristol Myers-Squibb. Publisher Copyright: © Funding Information: Funding The study was funded by NORDFORSK (grant agreement no. 90825, project NORA), the Swedish Research Council (2018-02803), the Swedish innovation Agency (Vinnova), Innovationsfonden and The Research Council of Norway, Region Stockholm-Karolinska Institutet and Region Västerbotten (ALF), the Danish Rheumatism Association (R194-A6956), the Swedish Brain Foundation, Nils and Bibbi Jensens Foundation, the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Margaretha af Ugglas Foundation, the South-Eastern Heath Region of Norway, the Health Research Fund of Central Denmark Region, Region of Southern Denmark, the A.P. Moller Foundation for the Advancement of Medical Science, the Colitis-Crohn Foreningen, the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF15OC0016932), Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond, Beckett-Fonden, Augustinus Fonden, Knud and Edith Eriksens Mindefond, Laege Sofus Carl Emil Friis and Hustru Olga Doris Friis’ Legat, the Psoriasis Forskningsfonden, the University of Aarhus, the Danish Rheumatism Association (R194-A6956, A1923, A3037 and A3570 – www. gigtforeningen.dk), Region of Southern Denmark’s PhD Fund, 12/7725 (www.regionsyddanmark.dk) and the Department of Rheumatology, Frederiksberg Hospital (www.frederiksberghospital. dk). MoBa Genetics has been funded by the Research Council of Norway (#229624, #223273), South East and Western Norway Health Authorities, ERC AdG project SELECTionPREDISPOSED, Stiftelsen Kristian Gerhard Jebsen, Trond Mohn Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the University of Bergen. KB and SB acknowledge the Novo Nordisk Foundation (grant NNF14CC0001). Funding Information: competing financial interests as employees. OAA is a consultant to HealthLytix. The following coauthors report the following but unrelated to the current report: Karolinska Institutet, with JA as principal investigator, has entered into agreements with the following entities, mainly but not exclusively for safety monitoring of rheumatology immunomodulators: Abbvie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis and Sanofi, unrelated to the present study. SB has ownerships in Intomics A/S, Hoba Therapeutics Aps, Novo Nordisk A/S, Lundbeck A/S and managing board memberships in Proscion A/S and Intomics A/S. BG has received research grants from AbbVie, Bristol Myers-Squibb and Pfizer; OH has received research grants from AbbVie, Novartis and Pfizer, DVJ has received speaker and consultation fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, AGL has received speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB; and CT has received consulting fees from Roche, speaker fees from Abbvie, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Nordic Drugs, Pfizer and Roche, and an unrestricted grant from Bristol Myers-Squibb. Publisher Copyright: ©Objectives To find causal genes for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and its seropositive (RF and/or ACPA positive) and seronegative subsets. Methods We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 31 313 RA cases (68% seropositive) and ∼1 million controls from Northwestern Europe. We searched for causal genes outside the HLA-locus through effect on coding, mRNA expression in several tissues and/or levels of plasma proteins (SomaScan) and did network analysis (Qiagen). Results We found 25 sequence variants for RA overall, 33 for seropositive and 2 for seronegative RA, altogether 37 sequence variants at 34 non-HLA loci, of which 15 are novel. Genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic analysis of these yielded 25 causal genes in seropositive RA and additional two overall. Most encode proteins in the network of interferon-Alpha/beta and IL-12/23 that signal through the JAK/STAT-pathway. Highlighting those with largest effect on seropositive RA, a rare missense variant in STAT4 (rs140675301-A) that is independent of reported non-coding STAT4-variants, increases the risk of seropositive RA 2.27-fold (p=2.1×10-9), more than the rs2476601-A missense variant in PTPN22 (OR=1.59, p=1.3×10-160). STAT4 rs140675301-A replaces hydrophilic glutamic acid with hydrophobic valine (Glu128Val) in a conserved, surface-exposed loop. A stop-mutation (rs76428106-C) in FLT3 increases seropositive RA risk (OR=1.35, p=6.6×10-11). Independent missense variants in TYK2 (rs34536443-C, rs12720356-C, rs35018800-A, latter two novel) associate with decreased risk of seropositive RA (ORs=0.63-0.87, p=10-9-10-27) and decreased plasma levels of interferon-Alpha/beta receptor 1 that signals through TYK2/JAK1/STAT4. Conclusion Sequence variants pointing to causal genes in the JAK/STAT pathway have largest effect on seropositive RA, while associations with seronegative RA remain scarce.Peer reviewe

Coal and Climate Change

This overview adopts a critical social science perspective to examine the state of play and potential futures for coal in the context of climate change. It introduces key trends in coal consumption, production and trade, before appraising the relevant literature. Finding surprisingly little literature directly focussed on coal and climate change compared with related fields, it appraises existing work and highlights key areas for future work. In addition to established bodies of work on the situated politics of coal and the political economy of coal, new work calling for demand side policies to be supplemented with supply side policies highlights the increasing importance of how normative contestations drive debates over coal, suggesting that future work needs to engage not only much more directly with climate change as an issue, but particularly with the place of coal in a just transition. Because of coal’s mammoth contribution to climate change and the complex political economy which drives its production and consumption, it is likely that coal will remain at the centre of difficult questions about the relationship between climate action and development for some time

“Fixing” Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future: Negative Emissions, Spatiotemporal Fixes, and the Political Economy of Delay

Models suggest that climate change mitigation now depends on negative emissions, i.e. the large‐scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This assumption has been criticised in the climate policy literature for being unfeasible and unjust. This article asks how critical scholars can make sense of, and contribute to these debates. It suggests that negative emissions can be conceived of as a spatiotemporal fix that promises to defer the devaluation of fixed capital. But the negative emissions example also challenges us to broaden our conception of how the socioecological contradictions of capitalism can be “fixed”. I outline three ways in which it does this by highlighting the significance of a predominantly temporal fix, the role of hegemonic, sociopolitical interventions involving multiple actors, and the possibility of safeguarding existing production processes. I conclude that spatiotemporal fixes to climate change should be seen as part of a wider political economy of delay in devaluing carbon‐intensive accumulation processes

Last chance for carbon capture and storage

Anthropogenic energy-related CO2 emissions are higher than ever. With new fossil-fuel power plants, growing energy-intensive industries and new sources of fossil fuels in development, further emissions increase seems inevitable. The rapid application of carbon capture and storage is a much heralded means to tackle emissions from both existing and future sources. However, despite extensive and successful research and development, progress in deploying carbon capture and storage has stalled. No fossil-fuel power plants, the greatest source of CO2 emissions, are using carbon capture and storage, and publicly supported demonstration programmes are struggling to deliver actual projects. Yet, carbon capture and storage remains a core component of national and global emissions-reduction scenarios. Governments have to either increase commitment to carbon capture and storage through much more active market support and emissions regulation, or accept its failure and recognize that continued expansion of power generation from burning fossil fuels is a severe threat to attaining objectives in mitigating climate change