Shane Timmons, Ylva Andersson, F. McGowan, P.D. Lunn
Replacing car travel with walking and cycling is at the core of the shift to healthier and more sustainable societies. Implementing dedicated infrastructure is a common measure to achieve this aim. But policymakers in multiple countries regularly contend with two obstacles: designing infrastructure that people will make use of and securing public support for implementation. We review and synthesize relevant research from behavioral science that sheds light on how to overcome these two obstacles. Given available literature, we focus on cycling infrastructure. We find that research on moderators of the success of active travel initiatives points to the importance of proximity, connectivity, and safety perceptions, particularly among women, older adults and children. We review empirical findings on which design elements make infrastructure both safe to use and perceived as safe. With respect to public support, we summarize common concerns and review research from behavioral economics and psychology that may help to counter misperceptions of the effects of active travel infrastructure. We also draw on evidence regarding support for climate policy and opinion formation more generally. The paper offers an evidence‐based guide for policymakers to design and implement active travel infrastructure, seen through the lens of behavioral science. It also highlights fruitful avenues for future research.This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Behavior Change and Responses The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior Policy and Governance > Governing Climate Change in Communities, Cities, and Regions
{"title":"Active travel infrastructure design and implementation: Insights from behavioral science","authors":"Shane Timmons, Ylva Andersson, F. McGowan, P.D. Lunn","doi":"10.1002/wcc.878","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.878","url":null,"abstract":"Replacing car travel with walking and cycling is at the core of the shift to healthier and more sustainable societies. Implementing dedicated infrastructure is a common measure to achieve this aim. But policymakers in multiple countries regularly contend with two obstacles: designing infrastructure that people will make use of and securing public support for implementation. We review and synthesize relevant research from behavioral science that sheds light on how to overcome these two obstacles. Given available literature, we focus on cycling infrastructure. We find that research on moderators of the success of active travel initiatives points to the importance of proximity, connectivity, and safety perceptions, particularly among women, older adults and children. We review empirical findings on which design elements make infrastructure both safe to use and perceived as safe. With respect to public support, we summarize common concerns and review research from behavioral economics and psychology that may help to counter misperceptions of the effects of active travel infrastructure. We also draw on evidence regarding support for climate policy and opinion formation more generally. The paper offers an evidence‐based guide for policymakers to design and implement active travel infrastructure, seen through the lens of behavioral science. It also highlights fruitful avenues for future research.This article is categorized under:\u0000Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Behavior Change and Responses\u0000The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior\u0000Policy and Governance > Governing Climate Change in Communities, Cities, and Regions\u0000","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"316 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140491263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Everyone must consume, but the wealthy consume more than most. Half of global household emissions come from the world's top 10% of income earners. In this review, we investigate the minimalist lifestyle to find out if minimalism could deliver the dual benefit of reduced carbon emissions and increased wellbeing. Minimalists have voluntarily chosen to have few possessions, despite economic and social structures that encourage consumption. Having fewer possessions suggests they might have a lower carbon emissions. A review of three other low‐consumption lifestyles: frugalism, tightwadism and voluntary simplicity, offers some support for this hypothesis, but the empirical evidence regarding minimalism is scant. We also review minimalist motivations, finding some support for a positive association between wellbeing and minimalism. We conclude that while minimalism might offer wellbeing benefits, research on carbon emissions is inconclusive. Furthermore, even if minimalism did result in reduced emissions, the minimalist lifestyle maybe too individualistic to create social change. This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Behavior Change and Responses The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior Climate and Development > Sustainability and Human Well‐Being
{"title":"Could a minimalist lifestyle reduce carbon emissions and improve wellbeing? A review of minimalism and other low consumption lifestyles","authors":"Rebecca Blackburn, Zoe Leviston, Iain Walker, Ashley Schram","doi":"10.1002/wcc.865","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.865","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Everyone must consume, but the wealthy consume more than most. Half of global household emissions come from the world's top 10% of income earners. In this review, we investigate the minimalist lifestyle to find out if minimalism could deliver the dual benefit of reduced carbon emissions and increased wellbeing. Minimalists have voluntarily chosen to have few possessions, despite economic and social structures that encourage consumption. Having fewer possessions suggests they might have a lower carbon emissions. A review of three other low‐consumption lifestyles: frugalism, tightwadism and voluntary simplicity, offers some support for this hypothesis, but the empirical evidence regarding minimalism is scant. We also review minimalist motivations, finding some support for a positive association between wellbeing and minimalism. We conclude that while minimalism might offer wellbeing benefits, research on carbon emissions is inconclusive. Furthermore, even if minimalism did result in reduced emissions, the minimalist lifestyle maybe too individualistic to create social change. This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Behavior Change and Responses The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior Climate and Development > Sustainability and Human Well‐Being","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"16 17","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135042898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Despite the last‐minute breakthrough agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference COP27 to provide funding for climate‐related loss and damage for vulnerable countries, distribution mechanisms and funding sources remain up for debate. With rapid‐onset climate impacts intensifying and slow‐onset impacts further manifesting, loss and damage from climate change is already occurring. Thus, quick, effective, and transparent distribution of upcoming funds is necessary. Currently, only a tiny fraction of existing sources of climate finance reach affected communities, commonly marked by high levels of poverty, and low levels of adaptive capacity. Similarly, donor‐based global humanitarian aid and development systems are buckling under the weight of increasing demand. As increasing climate impacts threaten to reverse development gains of the last decades, climate‐sensitive social protection has received increasing attention for its potential to address climate impacts, and to strengthen the adaptive capacity and resilience of climate‐vulnerable populations. This review article explores the prospects of channeling Loss and Damage funding through existing national social protection systems and highlights how this approach can efficiently contribute to safeguarding development gains, including previously overlooked aspects such as noneconomic loss and damage (NELD), while also dismantling soft adaptation barriers and thus fostering climate resilience in the long term. Although we identify barriers, including gaps in coverage of social protection systems both between and within countries, we argue that channeling some L&D funding through social protection systems aligns with core human rights and climate justice agendas, as well as the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities principle. This article is categorized under: Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Assessing Climate Change in the Context of Other Issues Policy and Governance > International Policy Framework Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation
{"title":"Turning climate justice into practice? Channeling loss and damage funding through national social protection systems in climate‐vulnerable countries","authors":"Jona Huber, Una Murray","doi":"10.1002/wcc.867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.867","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite the last‐minute breakthrough agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference COP27 to provide funding for climate‐related loss and damage for vulnerable countries, distribution mechanisms and funding sources remain up for debate. With rapid‐onset climate impacts intensifying and slow‐onset impacts further manifesting, loss and damage from climate change is already occurring. Thus, quick, effective, and transparent distribution of upcoming funds is necessary. Currently, only a tiny fraction of existing sources of climate finance reach affected communities, commonly marked by high levels of poverty, and low levels of adaptive capacity. Similarly, donor‐based global humanitarian aid and development systems are buckling under the weight of increasing demand. As increasing climate impacts threaten to reverse development gains of the last decades, climate‐sensitive social protection has received increasing attention for its potential to address climate impacts, and to strengthen the adaptive capacity and resilience of climate‐vulnerable populations. This review article explores the prospects of channeling Loss and Damage funding through existing national social protection systems and highlights how this approach can efficiently contribute to safeguarding development gains, including previously overlooked aspects such as noneconomic loss and damage (NELD), while also dismantling soft adaptation barriers and thus fostering climate resilience in the long term. Although we identify barriers, including gaps in coverage of social protection systems both between and within countries, we argue that channeling some L&D funding through social protection systems aligns with core human rights and climate justice agendas, as well as the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities principle. This article is categorized under: Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Assessing Climate Change in the Context of Other Issues Policy and Governance > International Policy Framework Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"273 25‐28","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135474815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Complying with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change requires leaving fossil fuels underground (LFFU), which raises justice issues regarding the Global South and its energy transition. The literature is scattered with no review papers on the challenges of LFFU in the Global South, hence we ask: What can be learnt from reviewing the scholarship on the Global South's energy transition, focusing on LFFU and the issue of stranded resources and assets? Our review reveals: (a) renewable investments in the Global South are relatively low for the scale of change needed, and such renewable deployment is more additive than substitutive. Nonetheless, there is potential for the Global South to leapfrog; (b) literature on LFFU in the Global South is limited, and much of it focuses on subsidies. However, developing countries might include stranded assets in their accounting, making LFFU appealing; (c) the Right to Development influences the energy transition's governance and justice issues: limited governance hampers LFFU, while understudied power dynamics shape transition's political economies. However, a global and multilevel just transition may have the potential to achieve LFFU. Thus, the literature overlooks (i) the dilemmas of stranded resources and assets from a developing country perspective and the implications in terms of equity, development, and climate change impacts; and (ii) the underlying power dynamics. Future research should investigate energy leapfrogging viability, critically assess renewables' additive rather than substitutive character in the Global South, and better identify the constraints to an inclusive energy transition, posed by North–South power dynamics and FF incumbents. This article is categorized under: Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development
{"title":"Fossil fuels, stranded assets, and the energy transition in the Global South: A systematic literature review","authors":"Augusto Heras, Joyeeta Gupta","doi":"10.1002/wcc.866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.866","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Complying with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change requires leaving fossil fuels underground (LFFU), which raises justice issues regarding the Global South and its energy transition. The literature is scattered with no review papers on the challenges of LFFU in the Global South, hence we ask: What can be learnt from reviewing the scholarship on the Global South's energy transition, focusing on LFFU and the issue of stranded resources and assets? Our review reveals: (a) renewable investments in the Global South are relatively low for the scale of change needed, and such renewable deployment is more additive than substitutive. Nonetheless, there is potential for the Global South to leapfrog; (b) literature on LFFU in the Global South is limited, and much of it focuses on subsidies. However, developing countries might include stranded assets in their accounting, making LFFU appealing; (c) the Right to Development influences the energy transition's governance and justice issues: limited governance hampers LFFU, while understudied power dynamics shape transition's political economies. However, a global and multilevel just transition may have the potential to achieve LFFU. Thus, the literature overlooks (i) the dilemmas of stranded resources and assets from a developing country perspective and the implications in terms of equity, development, and climate change impacts; and (ii) the underlying power dynamics. Future research should investigate energy leapfrogging viability, critically assess renewables' additive rather than substitutive character in the Global South, and better identify the constraints to an inclusive energy transition, posed by North–South power dynamics and FF incumbents. This article is categorized under: Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135726081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sander W. K. van den Burg, Sophie J. I. Koch, Marnix Poelman, Jeroen Veraart, Trond Selnes, Edwin M. Foekema, Romy Lansbergen
Abstract Global concerns about climate change were once again expressed at the COP27 in Sharm El‐Sheikh. Seaweed is frequently presented as a solution for climate mitigation. For a proper appraisal of its contribution to mitigating climate change, it is necessary to distinguish between, and critically scrutinize, the various pathways seaweed‐based climate mitigations can take. This article identifies four different climate mitigation pathways and critically reflects on each. First, carbon sequestration, occurring when grown seaweed is left in the seas or, second, purposefully sunk. Third, carbon emission reduction, resulting when seaweed‐based products replace products with a higher carbon footprint, either fossil based products or other organic material. Fourth, carbon emission avoidance, taking place when seaweed products are used to avoid greenhouse gas emissions in other production processes. Each of these pathways requires specific methods to quantify their magnitude and comes with critical questions to ask. The sequestration pathway requires monitoring of net carbon production and the amount of carbon that is eventually exported to the deep sea. Pathways 3 and 4 require Life Cycle Assessment and/or Carbon Footprint with system boundaries set to include the production system itself and installation thereof. We propose an unequivocal categorization in a belief that confusion on the benefits of seaweed will eventually impede development of seaweed‐based solutions. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Benefits of Mitigation
{"title":"Seaweed as climate mitigation solution: Categorizing and reflecting on four climate mitigation pathways","authors":"Sander W. K. van den Burg, Sophie J. I. Koch, Marnix Poelman, Jeroen Veraart, Trond Selnes, Edwin M. Foekema, Romy Lansbergen","doi":"10.1002/wcc.868","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.868","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Global concerns about climate change were once again expressed at the COP27 in Sharm El‐Sheikh. Seaweed is frequently presented as a solution for climate mitigation. For a proper appraisal of its contribution to mitigating climate change, it is necessary to distinguish between, and critically scrutinize, the various pathways seaweed‐based climate mitigations can take. This article identifies four different climate mitigation pathways and critically reflects on each. First, carbon sequestration, occurring when grown seaweed is left in the seas or, second, purposefully sunk. Third, carbon emission reduction, resulting when seaweed‐based products replace products with a higher carbon footprint, either fossil based products or other organic material. Fourth, carbon emission avoidance, taking place when seaweed products are used to avoid greenhouse gas emissions in other production processes. Each of these pathways requires specific methods to quantify their magnitude and comes with critical questions to ask. The sequestration pathway requires monitoring of net carbon production and the amount of carbon that is eventually exported to the deep sea. Pathways 3 and 4 require Life Cycle Assessment and/or Carbon Footprint with system boundaries set to include the production system itself and installation thereof. We propose an unequivocal categorization in a belief that confusion on the benefits of seaweed will eventually impede development of seaweed‐based solutions. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Benefits of Mitigation","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"48 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135726483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Claire Dupont, Brendan Moore, Elin Lerum Boasson, Viviane Gravey, Andrew Jordan, Paula Kivimaa, Kati Kulovesi, Caroline Kuzemko, Sebastian Oberthür, Dmytro Panchuk, Jeffrey Rosamond, Diarmuid Torney, Jale Tosun, Ingmar von Homeyer
Abstract The European Union (EU) began developing climate policy in the 1990s. Since then, it has built up a broad portfolio of mitigation policy measures and governance tools, including legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and policy measures addressing emissions trading, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and more. In 2019, the European Commission—the EU's executive arm—published the European Green Deal (EGD), an overarching policy framework to achieve the goal of climate neutrality by 2050. The EGD aims to push EU climate policy and governance far beyond incremental policy development. In this article, we ask: does the EGD represent a break from past patterns of EU climate governance? We argue that it maintains several past patterns, but nevertheless breaks from other established policy and governance trends. We review insights from politicization and new institutionalist theoretical lenses to help us understand these findings. We reveal certain tensions and challenges inherent in the EU's climate governance approach—around speed and coherence, effectiveness and just transition—that highlight future research needs, and raise questions about the EU's ability to implement its climate policy goals. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance
{"title":"Three decades of <scp>EU</scp> climate policy: Racing toward climate neutrality?","authors":"Claire Dupont, Brendan Moore, Elin Lerum Boasson, Viviane Gravey, Andrew Jordan, Paula Kivimaa, Kati Kulovesi, Caroline Kuzemko, Sebastian Oberthür, Dmytro Panchuk, Jeffrey Rosamond, Diarmuid Torney, Jale Tosun, Ingmar von Homeyer","doi":"10.1002/wcc.863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.863","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The European Union (EU) began developing climate policy in the 1990s. Since then, it has built up a broad portfolio of mitigation policy measures and governance tools, including legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and policy measures addressing emissions trading, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and more. In 2019, the European Commission—the EU's executive arm—published the European Green Deal (EGD), an overarching policy framework to achieve the goal of climate neutrality by 2050. The EGD aims to push EU climate policy and governance far beyond incremental policy development. In this article, we ask: does the EGD represent a break from past patterns of EU climate governance? We argue that it maintains several past patterns, but nevertheless breaks from other established policy and governance trends. We review insights from politicization and new institutionalist theoretical lenses to help us understand these findings. We reveal certain tensions and challenges inherent in the EU's climate governance approach—around speed and coherence, effectiveness and just transition—that highlight future research needs, and raise questions about the EU's ability to implement its climate policy goals. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136184633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Modern American members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints (aka LDS or Mormons) are among the most environmentally skeptical American groups, but it has not always been this way. The church has an exceptionally robust eco‐theology. In the 19th century, it espoused a strong “ethic of stewardship.” The review focuses on the story of how and why this shift from eco‐theology to eco‐skepticism occurred, shedding light on how theology, wider culture, and other forces can influence value creation, and how these changing values can transform the environmental attitudes and behaviors of an entire people. LDS eco‐theology shares some principles in common with some other Christian faiths, but also includes a number of unique or unusual beliefs and egalitarian/agrarian practices. In the early church (19th century), eco‐theology contributed to a value system which prioritized creation care. However, early LDS community land practices did not necessarily live up to these ideals and the local environment suffered serious consequences. Then, with an influx of external influences, including a growing population of non‐LDS frontiersmen, Latter‐day Saint values shifted away from creation care and egalitarianism and toward individualism and capitalism. Church leaders stopped regularly preaching about the earth's value, instead focusing on individual salvation. Environmental action antipathy and climate skepticism became the norm. This volte‐face demonstrates both how theology can influence values and actions, and the inverse. This article is categorized under: The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Sociology/Anthropology of Climate Knowledge Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Perceptions of Climate Change
{"title":"From eco‐theology to eco‐skepticism: How American Latter‐day Saint environmental perspectives changed over time, and how they may change again","authors":"Madeleine Ary Hahne","doi":"10.1002/wcc.864","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.864","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Modern American members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints (aka LDS or Mormons) are among the most environmentally skeptical American groups, but it has not always been this way. The church has an exceptionally robust eco‐theology. In the 19th century, it espoused a strong “ethic of stewardship.” The review focuses on the story of how and why this shift from eco‐theology to eco‐skepticism occurred, shedding light on how theology, wider culture, and other forces can influence value creation, and how these changing values can transform the environmental attitudes and behaviors of an entire people. LDS eco‐theology shares some principles in common with some other Christian faiths, but also includes a number of unique or unusual beliefs and egalitarian/agrarian practices. In the early church (19th century), eco‐theology contributed to a value system which prioritized creation care. However, early LDS community land practices did not necessarily live up to these ideals and the local environment suffered serious consequences. Then, with an influx of external influences, including a growing population of non‐LDS frontiersmen, Latter‐day Saint values shifted away from creation care and egalitarianism and toward individualism and capitalism. Church leaders stopped regularly preaching about the earth's value, instead focusing on individual salvation. Environmental action antipathy and climate skepticism became the norm. This volte‐face demonstrates both how theology can influence values and actions, and the inverse. This article is categorized under: The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Sociology/Anthropology of Climate Knowledge Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Perceptions of Climate Change","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136358975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Paul P. J. Gaffney, Qiuhong Tang, Quanwen Li, Ruiyang Zhang, Junxiao Pan, Ximeng Xu, Yuan Li, Shuli Niu
Abstract The Zoige peatlands are the largest peatland area in China, and the largest high‐altitude peatland in the world. As with many peatlands worldwide, degradation from land management and climate change mean that the intact Zoige peatland area has decreased, potentially reducing the carbon (C) sink function and ecosystem services. This review summarizes current knowledge of the impacts of land‐use and climate change on the Zoige peatland C cycle in a global perspective and identifies future research and management directions. The existing literature suggests that artificial drainage carried out to lower water tables and improve grazing has a significant impact on the peatland C cycle. Drained and degraded areas may act as a net C source, through increased CO 2 emissions, although the overall C balance of the Zoige peatlands is likely still a net C sink. Future climate change may also impact upon the peatland C cycle. Warming of 2°C may significantly reduce the strength of the C sink of intact peatland areas, which may shift the overall Zoige peatland C cycle balance to a net C source. The effect of warming on degraded Zoige peatlands is a major uncertainty, although the global literature suggests warming effects may be greater in degraded peatlands. Restoration of degraded peatlands (by blocking drains) may help reverse some of the impacts of degradation and gradually recover C sink function. However, there are fewer studies in Zoige peatlands than elsewhere. We conclude with several specific suggestions for future research on the peatland C cycle. This article is categorized under: Paleoclimates and Current Trends > Modern Climate Change Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Observed Impacts of Climate Change Climate, Ecology, and Conservation > Observed Ecological Changes
{"title":"The impacts of land‐use and climate change on the Zoige peatland carbon cycle: A review","authors":"Paul P. J. Gaffney, Qiuhong Tang, Quanwen Li, Ruiyang Zhang, Junxiao Pan, Ximeng Xu, Yuan Li, Shuli Niu","doi":"10.1002/wcc.862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.862","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Zoige peatlands are the largest peatland area in China, and the largest high‐altitude peatland in the world. As with many peatlands worldwide, degradation from land management and climate change mean that the intact Zoige peatland area has decreased, potentially reducing the carbon (C) sink function and ecosystem services. This review summarizes current knowledge of the impacts of land‐use and climate change on the Zoige peatland C cycle in a global perspective and identifies future research and management directions. The existing literature suggests that artificial drainage carried out to lower water tables and improve grazing has a significant impact on the peatland C cycle. Drained and degraded areas may act as a net C source, through increased CO 2 emissions, although the overall C balance of the Zoige peatlands is likely still a net C sink. Future climate change may also impact upon the peatland C cycle. Warming of 2°C may significantly reduce the strength of the C sink of intact peatland areas, which may shift the overall Zoige peatland C cycle balance to a net C source. The effect of warming on degraded Zoige peatlands is a major uncertainty, although the global literature suggests warming effects may be greater in degraded peatlands. Restoration of degraded peatlands (by blocking drains) may help reverse some of the impacts of degradation and gradually recover C sink function. However, there are fewer studies in Zoige peatlands than elsewhere. We conclude with several specific suggestions for future research on the peatland C cycle. This article is categorized under: Paleoclimates and Current Trends > Modern Climate Change Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Observed Impacts of Climate Change Climate, Ecology, and Conservation > Observed Ecological Changes","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135643988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist, Andrea Seim, Dominik Collet
Abstract The article evaluates recent scholarship on famines in Europe during the medieval and early modern periods ( c . 700–1800), synthesizing the state‐of‐the‐art knowledge and identifying both research gaps and interdisciplinary potentials. Particular focus is placed on how , and to what extent , climatic change and variability is given explanatory power in famine causation. Current research, supported by recent advances in palaeoclimatology, reveals that anomalous cold conditions constituted the main environmental backdrop for severe food production crises that could result in famines in pre‐industrial Europe. Such food crises occurred most frequently between c . 1550 and 1710, during the climax of the Little Ice Age cooling, and can be connected to the strong dependency on grain in Europe during this period. The available body of scholarship demonstrates that famines in medieval and early modern Europe best can be understood as the result of the interactions of climatic and societal stressors responding to pre‐existing vulnerabilities. Recent research has shown that societal responses to these famines, and the appropriation of their consequences, have been much more comprehensive, dynamic, and substantial than previously assumed. The article concludes by providing recommendations for future studies on historical famines. This article is categorized under: Climate, History, Society, Culture > Major Historical Eras Climate, History, Society, Culture > Disciplinary Perspectives Paleoclimates and Current Trends > Paleoclimate
{"title":"Famines in medieval and early modern Europe—Connecting climate and society","authors":"Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist, Andrea Seim, Dominik Collet","doi":"10.1002/wcc.859","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.859","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article evaluates recent scholarship on famines in Europe during the medieval and early modern periods ( c . 700–1800), synthesizing the state‐of‐the‐art knowledge and identifying both research gaps and interdisciplinary potentials. Particular focus is placed on how , and to what extent , climatic change and variability is given explanatory power in famine causation. Current research, supported by recent advances in palaeoclimatology, reveals that anomalous cold conditions constituted the main environmental backdrop for severe food production crises that could result in famines in pre‐industrial Europe. Such food crises occurred most frequently between c . 1550 and 1710, during the climax of the Little Ice Age cooling, and can be connected to the strong dependency on grain in Europe during this period. The available body of scholarship demonstrates that famines in medieval and early modern Europe best can be understood as the result of the interactions of climatic and societal stressors responding to pre‐existing vulnerabilities. Recent research has shown that societal responses to these famines, and the appropriation of their consequences, have been much more comprehensive, dynamic, and substantial than previously assumed. The article concludes by providing recommendations for future studies on historical famines. This article is categorized under: Climate, History, Society, Culture > Major Historical Eras Climate, History, Society, Culture > Disciplinary Perspectives Paleoclimates and Current Trends > Paleoclimate","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"101 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135744174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Climate justice and reproductive justice are distinct scholarly and activist frameworks that have received significant attention in recent years—particularly with respect to how they might be linked together. In this overview, I survey the main lenses through which various actors have linked climate justice and reproductive justice in the United States. First, I review the literatures: on climate justice, the perspective that those who are least responsible for the conditions causing climate change are disproportionately impacted by it; and on the reproductive justice, which focuses on rejecting reproductive oppression to achieve comprehensive reproductive autonomy for individuals and communities. Next, I analyze frameworks that seek to reframe reproductive justice through a populationist, climate‐centered lens. I contrast these framings with new approaches focused on racial health disparities and intergenerational justice. The article ends with questions about the next directions in climate justice and reproductive justice linkages: in particular, the role of eco‐anxiety in shaping reproductive futures. In so doing, I argue for approaches that challenge mainstream framings focused on population size and growth, and instead foreground the embodied reproductive outcomes of climate‐impacted communities.This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Ethics and Climate Change Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Human Rights Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation
{"title":"At the intersection of climate justice and reproductive justice","authors":"Jade S. Sasser","doi":"10.1002/wcc.860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.860","url":null,"abstract":"Climate justice and reproductive justice are distinct scholarly and activist frameworks that have received significant attention in recent years—particularly with respect to how they might be linked together. In this overview, I survey the main lenses through which various actors have linked climate justice and reproductive justice in the United States. First, I review the literatures: on climate justice, the perspective that those who are least responsible for the conditions causing climate change are disproportionately impacted by it; and on the reproductive justice, which focuses on rejecting reproductive oppression to achieve comprehensive reproductive autonomy for individuals and communities. Next, I analyze frameworks that seek to reframe reproductive justice through a populationist, climate‐centered lens. I contrast these framings with new approaches focused on racial health disparities and intergenerational justice. The article ends with questions about the next directions in climate justice and reproductive justice linkages: in particular, the role of eco‐anxiety in shaping reproductive futures. In so doing, I argue for approaches that challenge mainstream framings focused on population size and growth, and instead foreground the embodied reproductive outcomes of climate‐impacted communities.This article is categorized under:\u0000Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Ethics and Climate Change\u0000Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Human Rights\u0000Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134958661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：