Abstract The El Niño‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a major component of the Earth's climate that largely influences global climate variability through long‐distance teleconnections. Rossby wave trains emerging from the tropical convection and their propagation into extratropical regions are the key mechanism for tropical and extratropical teleconnections. Despite significant progress in the understanding of ENSO teleconnections over the recent past decades, several important issues have remained to be addressed. The global atmospheric teleconnections of ENSO vary substantially with the seasonal cycle, on the decadal timescale, and under the influence of global warming. It is essential to separate the internal decadal variability of ENSO teleconnections from changes caused by the external forcing of global warming. However, the post‐satellite observations are not long enough to compose a large number of ENSO events to distinguish the decadal variability of ENSO teleconnections from changes related to increasing greenhouse concentrations. The current climate models also suffer from common biases, such that they are unable to properly reproduce both the tropical mean state and some features of ENSO. Nevertheless, observational records can be extended back in time via reconstruction methods. Efforts have also already been made to remove some main common biases of climate models and to improve the representation of ENSO characteristics. The reliable reconstructed data along with a large number of ensemble members of the improved climate model simulations can be applied to advance our understanding of ENSO global teleconnections and their responses to internal decadal variability and externally forced global warming. This article is categorized under: Paleoclimates and Current Trends > Modern Climate Change Climate Models and Modeling > Earth System Models Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Evaluating Future Impacts of Climate Change
{"title":"A review of <scp>ENSO</scp> teleconnections at present and under future global warming","authors":"Omid Alizadeh","doi":"10.1002/wcc.861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.861","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The El Niño‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a major component of the Earth's climate that largely influences global climate variability through long‐distance teleconnections. Rossby wave trains emerging from the tropical convection and their propagation into extratropical regions are the key mechanism for tropical and extratropical teleconnections. Despite significant progress in the understanding of ENSO teleconnections over the recent past decades, several important issues have remained to be addressed. The global atmospheric teleconnections of ENSO vary substantially with the seasonal cycle, on the decadal timescale, and under the influence of global warming. It is essential to separate the internal decadal variability of ENSO teleconnections from changes caused by the external forcing of global warming. However, the post‐satellite observations are not long enough to compose a large number of ENSO events to distinguish the decadal variability of ENSO teleconnections from changes related to increasing greenhouse concentrations. The current climate models also suffer from common biases, such that they are unable to properly reproduce both the tropical mean state and some features of ENSO. Nevertheless, observational records can be extended back in time via reconstruction methods. Efforts have also already been made to remove some main common biases of climate models and to improve the representation of ENSO characteristics. The reliable reconstructed data along with a large number of ensemble members of the improved climate model simulations can be applied to advance our understanding of ENSO global teleconnections and their responses to internal decadal variability and externally forced global warming. This article is categorized under: Paleoclimates and Current Trends > Modern Climate Change Climate Models and Modeling > Earth System Models Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Evaluating Future Impacts of Climate Change","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136236655","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}
Expectations about the future removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere have mobilized projects which seek to demonstrate carbon removal methods, at various stages of development. Public perceptions play a critical role in demonstrations and funders widely require demonstration projects to identify and consult affected groups and communities. This review examines the extant research on perceptions of carbon removal, analyzing how studies have conceptualized the public and the role perceptions play in field trials and experiments of carbon removal methods. The paper develops a novel analytical framework distinguishing between “procedural” and “performative” approaches to demonstrations. Attending to performativity, we suggest, makes clear why demonstration projects often surface conflicting expectations about future technology development. We apply the analytical framework to the academic literature on perceptions of carbon removal using a systematic search and interpretive review. We find that much perceptions research on carbon removal adopts elements from linear models of innovation, foregrounding the problem of social acceptance and distancing the public from experimental presentations and displays. We situate these findings in a discussion of the roles that expectations about carbon removal play in demonstrations and the positioning of perceptions research as a tool for managing “opposition” from external audiences. Moving beyond instrumental approaches to public perception, the review makes the case for closer engagement in perceptions research with conflicting expectations that emerge around projects demonstrating the “promise” of carbon removal.This article is categorized under: The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Perceptions of Climate Change Climate, History, Society, Culture > Technological Aspects and Ideas
{"title":"Carbon removal demonstrations and problems of public perception","authors":"Laurie Waller, Emily Cox, Rob Bellamy","doi":"10.1002/wcc.857","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.857","url":null,"abstract":"Expectations about the future removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere have mobilized projects which seek to demonstrate carbon removal methods, at various stages of development. Public perceptions play a critical role in demonstrations and funders widely require demonstration projects to identify and consult affected groups and communities. This review examines the extant research on perceptions of carbon removal, analyzing how studies have conceptualized the public and the role perceptions play in field trials and experiments of carbon removal methods. The paper develops a novel analytical framework distinguishing between “procedural” and “performative” approaches to demonstrations. Attending to performativity, we suggest, makes clear why demonstration projects often surface conflicting expectations about future technology development. We apply the analytical framework to the academic literature on perceptions of carbon removal using a systematic search and interpretive review. We find that much perceptions research on carbon removal adopts elements from linear models of innovation, foregrounding the problem of social acceptance and distancing the public from experimental presentations and displays. We situate these findings in a discussion of the roles that expectations about carbon removal play in demonstrations and the positioning of perceptions research as a tool for managing “opposition” from external audiences. Moving beyond instrumental approaches to public perception, the review makes the case for closer engagement in perceptions research with conflicting expectations that emerge around projects demonstrating the “promise” of carbon removal.This article is categorized under: The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Perceptions of Climate Change Climate, History, Society, Culture > Technological Aspects and Ideas","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136314296","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}
Ideal carbon tax policy is internationally coordinated, fully internalizes externalities, redistributes revenues to those harmed, and is politically acceptable, generating predictable market signals. Since nonideal circumstances rarely allow all these conditions to be met, moral issues arise. This paper surveys some of the work in moral philosophy responding to several of these issues. First, it discusses the moral drivers for estimates of the social cost of carbon. Second, it explains how national self‐interest can block climate action and suggests international policies—carbon border tax adjustments and carbon clubs—that can help address these concerns. Third, it introduces some of the social science literature about the political acceptability of carbon taxes before addressing a couple common public concerns about carbon taxes. Finally, it introduces four carbon revenue usage options, arguing that redistributive and climate compensation measures are most morally justified.This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Ethics and Climate Change Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development
{"title":"Carbon tax ethics","authors":"Kian Mintz‐Woo","doi":"10.1002/wcc.858","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.858","url":null,"abstract":"Ideal carbon tax policy is internationally coordinated, fully internalizes externalities, redistributes revenues to those harmed, and is politically acceptable, generating predictable market signals. Since nonideal circumstances rarely allow all these conditions to be met, moral issues arise. This paper surveys some of the work in moral philosophy responding to several of these issues. First, it discusses the moral drivers for estimates of the social cost of carbon. Second, it explains how national self‐interest can block climate action and suggests international policies—carbon border tax adjustments and carbon clubs—that can help address these concerns. Third, it introduces some of the social science literature about the political acceptability of carbon taxes before addressing a couple common public concerns about carbon taxes. Finally, it introduces four carbon revenue usage options, arguing that redistributive and climate compensation measures are most morally justified.This article is categorized under:\u0000Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Ethics and Climate Change\u0000Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice\u0000Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development\u0000","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130968270","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}
In the climate adaptation literature, we can distinguish two seemingly distinct frameworks for the concept of vulnerability. We might think of vulnerability in terms of susceptibility to harm. Some discussions of vulnerability accordingly focus on the risk posed to well‐being. Alternatively, we might think of vulnerability in terms of a system's responsiveness to adverse conditions, often spelled out in terms of resilience. This article highlights and distinguishes these frameworks through a brief survey of climate adaptation literature. Understanding the relationship between these two frameworks is vital not only for conceptual clarity, but also for developing adaptation strategies that respond to the different sorts of vulnerabilities posed by climate change. Mitigating the vulnerability of an individual at risk of harm might well complicate efforts at mitigating the vulnerabilities of systems in which that individual is embedded. Humans are clearly at risk of harm from a changing climate, and changing climate challenges the resilience of systems on which humans depend. The paper concludes with a brief consideration of the vulnerabilities that arise from the dissociation of people from their environments. Dissociation, whether through the migration of people or through changes to environmental background conditions not only makes clear the dual nature of vulnerabilities, but also serves as a lens through which we might consider the prospects for integrating a more cohesive account of vulnerability into successful climate adaptation strategies.This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Ethics and Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation
{"title":"Two faces of vulnerability: Distinguishing susceptibility to harm and system resilience in climate adaptation","authors":"Kenneth Shockley","doi":"10.1002/wcc.856","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.856","url":null,"abstract":"In the climate adaptation literature, we can distinguish two seemingly distinct frameworks for the concept of vulnerability. We might think of vulnerability in terms of susceptibility to harm. Some discussions of vulnerability accordingly focus on the risk posed to well‐being. Alternatively, we might think of vulnerability in terms of a system's responsiveness to adverse conditions, often spelled out in terms of resilience. This article highlights and distinguishes these frameworks through a brief survey of climate adaptation literature. Understanding the relationship between these two frameworks is vital not only for conceptual clarity, but also for developing adaptation strategies that respond to the different sorts of vulnerabilities posed by climate change. Mitigating the vulnerability of an individual at risk of harm might well complicate efforts at mitigating the vulnerabilities of systems in which that individual is embedded. Humans are clearly at risk of harm from a changing climate, and changing climate challenges the resilience of systems on which humans depend. The paper concludes with a brief consideration of the vulnerabilities that arise from the dissociation of people from their environments. Dissociation, whether through the migration of people or through changes to environmental background conditions not only makes clear the dual nature of vulnerabilities, but also serves as a lens through which we might consider the prospects for integrating a more cohesive account of vulnerability into successful climate adaptation strategies.This article is categorized under:\u0000Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Ethics and Climate Change\u0000Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation\u0000","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129874410","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}
Globally, cultural heritage is on the front line of anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, it could be argued that climate change should now be a primary lens through which cultural heritage conservation and management are viewed. We argue that addressing the growing and compounding risks and impacts of climate change requires a fundamental rethink and transformation of cultural heritage management and policy. In this article, we propose a climate‐smart cultural heritage (CSCH) approach that captures the notion that climate adaptation can be developed and implemented within the heritage sector to simultaneously reduce the impacts of changing climate and variability on tangible and intangible cultural heritage and provide co‐benefits for climate change mitigation while also enhancing human security at different spatial scales. The CSCH is an integrated approach to implementing forward‐looking and transformative cultural heritage management and policy and is not a new set of practices to be advocated to cultural heritage stakeholders and decision‐makers. Findings also demonstrate that institutional mechanisms such as multi‐stakeholder planning, increased awareness of the economic, social, and environmental benefits of diverse cultural heritage, improved cross‐sectoral coordination and communication, strong political will for transformative approaches, and investments in CSCH are necessary for implementation of CSCH.
{"title":"Towards a climate‐smart cultural heritage management","authors":"S. Fatorić, Cathy Daly","doi":"10.1002/wcc.855","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.855","url":null,"abstract":"Globally, cultural heritage is on the front line of anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, it could be argued that climate change should now be a primary lens through which cultural heritage conservation and management are viewed. We argue that addressing the growing and compounding risks and impacts of climate change requires a fundamental rethink and transformation of cultural heritage management and policy. In this article, we propose a climate‐smart cultural heritage (CSCH) approach that captures the notion that climate adaptation can be developed and implemented within the heritage sector to simultaneously reduce the impacts of changing climate and variability on tangible and intangible cultural heritage and provide co‐benefits for climate change mitigation while also enhancing human security at different spatial scales. The CSCH is an integrated approach to implementing forward‐looking and transformative cultural heritage management and policy and is not a new set of practices to be advocated to cultural heritage stakeholders and decision‐makers. Findings also demonstrate that institutional mechanisms such as multi‐stakeholder planning, increased awareness of the economic, social, and environmental benefits of diverse cultural heritage, improved cross‐sectoral coordination and communication, strong political will for transformative approaches, and investments in CSCH are necessary for implementation of CSCH.","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126575357","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}
Discourses about young people are interacting with climate change discourses in ways that often marginalize the young in social responses to climate change. The resulting stories about young people in a changing climate build upon long‐standing representations of youthhood in late modern societies as a liminal, ill‐defined state between childhood and adulthood. The social and behavioral sciences have both helped produce these stories and critically examined their origins, characteristics, and effects. This article offers a novel critical review of ideas about young people in climate change research across a wide variety of disciplines and fields, including geography, psychology, sociology, education, political studies, health studies, media studies, legal studies, and youth studies. We employ Hajer's account of discursive storylines to identify seven ways in which young people are storied in climate discourses. While distinct, stories of young people as innocent, vulnerable, heroic, alarmist, inheriting, apathetic or narcissistic overlap, and interact. This variety of storylines reflects the mutable category of young people and the deliberate ambiguity with which it is often deployed. We use this typology in three ways to advance the interests of young people in climate change discourses. First, we show how these discourses are indebted to while also changing understandings of young people in late modern societies. Second, we consider the potential impacts of these stories on young lives and on responses to climate change. Third, we identify prospects for new stories to emerge as young voices become increasingly important in urgent social discussions of climate change.
{"title":"Innocent heroes or self‐absorbed alarmists? A thematic review of the variety and effects of storylines about young people in climate change discourses","authors":"C. Jones, A. Davison, C. Lucas","doi":"10.1002/wcc.853","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.853","url":null,"abstract":"Discourses about young people are interacting with climate change discourses in ways that often marginalize the young in social responses to climate change. The resulting stories about young people in a changing climate build upon long‐standing representations of youthhood in late modern societies as a liminal, ill‐defined state between childhood and adulthood. The social and behavioral sciences have both helped produce these stories and critically examined their origins, characteristics, and effects. This article offers a novel critical review of ideas about young people in climate change research across a wide variety of disciplines and fields, including geography, psychology, sociology, education, political studies, health studies, media studies, legal studies, and youth studies. We employ Hajer's account of discursive storylines to identify seven ways in which young people are storied in climate discourses. While distinct, stories of young people as innocent, vulnerable, heroic, alarmist, inheriting, apathetic or narcissistic overlap, and interact. This variety of storylines reflects the mutable category of young people and the deliberate ambiguity with which it is often deployed. We use this typology in three ways to advance the interests of young people in climate change discourses. First, we show how these discourses are indebted to while also changing understandings of young people in late modern societies. Second, we consider the potential impacts of these stories on young lives and on responses to climate change. Third, we identify prospects for new stories to emerge as young voices become increasingly important in urgent social discussions of climate change.","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133485233","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}
Many economic modelers believe that there is an “optimal economic path” for solving the climate problem that exists independent of human choices. This belief rests on the notion that Integrated Assessment Models can determine the path that “maximizes global welfare” and, in turn, this path should drive climate policy. This commentary focuses on an under‐appreciated problem with that belief. We argue that the existence of pervasive increasing returns to scale, network externalities, learning curves, spillovers, and other nonlinear effects puts the idea of a single optimal economic path at odds with our current understanding of the most important forces driving the development of real economic and technological systems. We further argue that this idea is detrimental to rigorous understanding of climate solutions.
{"title":"Abandon the idea of an “optimal economic path” for climate policy","authors":"J. Koomey, K. Hausker, Zachary Schmidt, D. Lashof","doi":"10.1002/wcc.850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.850","url":null,"abstract":"Many economic modelers believe that there is an “optimal economic path” for solving the climate problem that exists independent of human choices. This belief rests on the notion that Integrated Assessment Models can determine the path that “maximizes global welfare” and, in turn, this path should drive climate policy. This commentary focuses on an under‐appreciated problem with that belief. We argue that the existence of pervasive increasing returns to scale, network externalities, learning curves, spillovers, and other nonlinear effects puts the idea of a single optimal economic path at odds with our current understanding of the most important forces driving the development of real economic and technological systems. We further argue that this idea is detrimental to rigorous understanding of climate solutions.","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126679115","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}
Ryan Andrew Martin, C. R. D. da Silva, M. P. Moore, S. Diamond
Decades of research have illuminated the underlying ingredients that determine the scope of evolutionary responses to climate change. The field of evolutionary biology therefore stands ready to take what it has learned about influences upon the rate of adaptive evolution—such as population demography, generation time, and standing genetic variation—and apply it to assess if and how populations can evolve fast enough to “keep pace” with climate change. Here, our review highlights what the field of evolutionary biology can contribute and what it still needs to learn to provide more mechanistic predictions of the winners and losers of climate change. We begin by developing broad predictions for contemporary evolution to climate change based on theory. We then discuss methods for assessing climate‐driven contemporary evolution, including quantitative genetic studies, experimental evolution, and space‐for‐time substitutions. After providing this mechanism‐focused overview of both the evidence for evolutionary responses to climate change and more specifically, evolving to keep pace with climate change, we next consider the factors that limit actual evolutionary responses. In this context, we consider the dual role of phenotypic plasticity in facilitating but also impeding evolutionary change. Finally, we detail how a deeper consideration of evolutionary constraints can improve forecasts of responses to climate change and therefore also inform conservation and management decisions.
{"title":"When will a changing climate outpace adaptive evolution?","authors":"Ryan Andrew Martin, C. R. D. da Silva, M. P. Moore, S. Diamond","doi":"10.1002/wcc.852","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.852","url":null,"abstract":"Decades of research have illuminated the underlying ingredients that determine the scope of evolutionary responses to climate change. The field of evolutionary biology therefore stands ready to take what it has learned about influences upon the rate of adaptive evolution—such as population demography, generation time, and standing genetic variation—and apply it to assess if and how populations can evolve fast enough to “keep pace” with climate change. Here, our review highlights what the field of evolutionary biology can contribute and what it still needs to learn to provide more mechanistic predictions of the winners and losers of climate change. We begin by developing broad predictions for contemporary evolution to climate change based on theory. We then discuss methods for assessing climate‐driven contemporary evolution, including quantitative genetic studies, experimental evolution, and space‐for‐time substitutions. After providing this mechanism‐focused overview of both the evidence for evolutionary responses to climate change and more specifically, evolving to keep pace with climate change, we next consider the factors that limit actual evolutionary responses. In this context, we consider the dual role of phenotypic plasticity in facilitating but also impeding evolutionary change. Finally, we detail how a deeper consideration of evolutionary constraints can improve forecasts of responses to climate change and therefore also inform conservation and management decisions.","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128115819","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}
Historical studies of the influence of imperialism and colonialism on climate science have yet to be brought together into a critical synthesis. This advanced review offers a critical overview of the key themes of this literature with the primary intention of enabling historians and other scholars to recognize, specify, and acknowledge the roles of imperial and colonial processes in shaping scientific framings of climate. Following a brief overview of debates in older literature over the significance of imperialism and colonialism in climate sciences, the article investigates the wealth of recent scholarship that demonstrates specific and diverse connections between empires and climate science. Major features of this scholarship include: the role and the erasure of Indigenous and local knowledge; imperial climate infrastructures and visions; and climate data and theories in land empires as well as in informal empires and neocolonial settings. Through critically engaging these themes, the article seeks to help historians identify avenues for future research.
{"title":"Imperialism, colonialism, and climate change science","authors":"Harriet J. Mercer, Thomas Simpson","doi":"10.1002/wcc.851","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.851","url":null,"abstract":"Historical studies of the influence of imperialism and colonialism on climate science have yet to be brought together into a critical synthesis. This advanced review offers a critical overview of the key themes of this literature with the primary intention of enabling historians and other scholars to recognize, specify, and acknowledge the roles of imperial and colonial processes in shaping scientific framings of climate. Following a brief overview of debates in older literature over the significance of imperialism and colonialism in climate sciences, the article investigates the wealth of recent scholarship that demonstrates specific and diverse connections between empires and climate science. Major features of this scholarship include: the role and the erasure of Indigenous and local knowledge; imperial climate infrastructures and visions; and climate data and theories in land empires as well as in informal empires and neocolonial settings. Through critically engaging these themes, the article seeks to help historians identify avenues for future research.","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123902426","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}
Yuefang Guo, Yu Yang, M. Bradshaw, Chang Wang, Mathieu Blondeel
Oil and gas (O&G) companies, as key players in the contemporary global energy landscape, have evolved within the context of a dynamic interaction between states and markets. However, their role is being transformed radically by two successive “global shifts”: economic globalization—driving energy demand growth patterns—and climate change—driving energy system transformation and decarbonization, both of which require them to reconsider their business strategies. Using an interdisciplinary lens that draws on human geography, strategy and international business, and international political economy, we propose an integrated conceptual framework for two periods—the 1990s–early 2010s and the post‐Paris Agreement era—to explore the nature of strategic responses by O&G companies to these global economic and environmental shifts. We illustrate the linkage of O&G companies' two strategies of (re‐)globalization and decarbonization by the aspects of production, finance, and knowledge as internal structures. Energy security is one of the priorities in the macro external environment. It is becoming increasingly difficult for O&G companies to deal with current dilemmas: climate goals require a significant reduction in fossil fuel production and consumption, and pressures from governments, nongovernmental organizations, and investors threaten the long‐term survival of O&G companies, while fossil fuel demand will remain high in the short to medium term. At the same time, the post‐pandemic recovery and Russia's war in Ukraine are resulting in a re‐assessment of the benefits of unfettered globalization. Therefore, global O&G companies face dual challenges in the new era of (re‐)globalization and decarbonization and need to make changes to ensure their future viability.
{"title":"Globalization and decarbonization: Changing strategies of global oil and gas companies","authors":"Yuefang Guo, Yu Yang, M. Bradshaw, Chang Wang, Mathieu Blondeel","doi":"10.1002/wcc.849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.849","url":null,"abstract":"Oil and gas (O&G) companies, as key players in the contemporary global energy landscape, have evolved within the context of a dynamic interaction between states and markets. However, their role is being transformed radically by two successive “global shifts”: economic globalization—driving energy demand growth patterns—and climate change—driving energy system transformation and decarbonization, both of which require them to reconsider their business strategies. Using an interdisciplinary lens that draws on human geography, strategy and international business, and international political economy, we propose an integrated conceptual framework for two periods—the 1990s–early 2010s and the post‐Paris Agreement era—to explore the nature of strategic responses by O&G companies to these global economic and environmental shifts. We illustrate the linkage of O&G companies' two strategies of (re‐)globalization and decarbonization by the aspects of production, finance, and knowledge as internal structures. Energy security is one of the priorities in the macro external environment. It is becoming increasingly difficult for O&G companies to deal with current dilemmas: climate goals require a significant reduction in fossil fuel production and consumption, and pressures from governments, nongovernmental organizations, and investors threaten the long‐term survival of O&G companies, while fossil fuel demand will remain high in the short to medium term. At the same time, the post‐pandemic recovery and Russia's war in Ukraine are resulting in a re‐assessment of the benefits of unfettered globalization. Therefore, global O&G companies face dual challenges in the new era of (re‐)globalization and decarbonization and need to make changes to ensure their future viability.","PeriodicalId":212421,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116674433","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：