W. Obergassel, S. Bauer, L. Hermwille, Stefan C. Aykut, Idil Boran, Sander Chan, Carolin Fraude, Richard J. T. Klein, K. Mar, Heike Schroeder, K. Simeonova
The gap between the internationally agreed climate objectives and tangible emissions reductions looms large. We explore how the supreme decision‐making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Conference of the Parties (COP), could develop to promote more effective climate policy. We argue that promoting implementation of climate action could benefit from focusing more on individual sectoral systems, particularly for mitigation. We consider five key governance functions of international institutions to discuss how the COP and the sessions it convenes could advance implementation of the Paris Agreement: guidance and signal, rules and standards, transparency and accountability, means of implementation, and knowledge and learning. In addition, we consider the role of the COP and its sessions as mega‐events of global climate policy. We identify opportunities for promoting sectoral climate action across all five governance functions and for both the COP as a formal body and the COP sessions as conducive events. Harnessing these opportunities would require stronger involvement of national ministries in addition to the ministries of foreign affairs and environment that traditionally run the COP process, as well as stronger involvement of non‐Party stakeholders within formal COP processes.
{"title":"From regime‐building to implementation: Harnessing the UN climate conferences to drive climate action","authors":"W. Obergassel, S. Bauer, L. Hermwille, Stefan C. Aykut, Idil Boran, Sander Chan, Carolin Fraude, Richard J. T. Klein, K. Mar, Heike Schroeder, K. Simeonova","doi":"10.1002/wcc.797","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.797","url":null,"abstract":"The gap between the internationally agreed climate objectives and tangible emissions reductions looms large. We explore how the supreme decision‐making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Conference of the Parties (COP), could develop to promote more effective climate policy. We argue that promoting implementation of climate action could benefit from focusing more on individual sectoral systems, particularly for mitigation. We consider five key governance functions of international institutions to discuss how the COP and the sessions it convenes could advance implementation of the Paris Agreement: guidance and signal, rules and standards, transparency and accountability, means of implementation, and knowledge and learning. In addition, we consider the role of the COP and its sessions as mega‐events of global climate policy. We identify opportunities for promoting sectoral climate action across all five governance functions and for both the COP as a formal body and the COP sessions as conducive events. Harnessing these opportunities would require stronger involvement of national ministries in addition to the ministries of foreign affairs and environment that traditionally run the COP process, as well as stronger involvement of non‐Party stakeholders within formal COP processes.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41991641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Concern around the employment impacts of climate mitigation policies can be a contentious and politized issue, with potentially limiting implications for climate action. It persists despite a significant ex ante literature that suggests that aggregate effects will most likely be limited and net positive. This review analyses 60 papers assessing the employment impacts of climate policies ex post, in 20 countries and 2 country groups. Eight broad mitigation policies are covered: (1) emissions trading, (2) carbon taxes, (3) feed‐in tariffs, renewable energy (4) procurement and (5) deployment, (6) green economy/jobs, (7) environmental regulation, and (8) other policies and regulations. The analysis confirms that employment impacts tend to be modest and net positive or neutral, but reveals that distributional outcomes can be uneven, disadvantaging certain groups and at times reinforcing existing inequalities. Additionally, lower quality jobs or weak labor market regulations may decrease the attractiveness of jobs created or increase job transition costs. These findings provide some justification for increased focus on how climate policies can ensure a “just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs” stipulated in the Paris Agreement, but also suggest that climate action should not be delayed for fear of widespread negative employment impacts. Ex post assessments offer an important lens into the determinants of climate policy employment outcomes and should be advanced and harnessed in support of accelerated and just action.
{"title":"What do we know about the employment impacts of climate policies? A review of the ex post literature","authors":"C. Godinho","doi":"10.1002/wcc.794","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.794","url":null,"abstract":"Concern around the employment impacts of climate mitigation policies can be a contentious and politized issue, with potentially limiting implications for climate action. It persists despite a significant ex ante literature that suggests that aggregate effects will most likely be limited and net positive. This review analyses 60 papers assessing the employment impacts of climate policies ex post, in 20 countries and 2 country groups. Eight broad mitigation policies are covered: (1) emissions trading, (2) carbon taxes, (3) feed‐in tariffs, renewable energy (4) procurement and (5) deployment, (6) green economy/jobs, (7) environmental regulation, and (8) other policies and regulations. The analysis confirms that employment impacts tend to be modest and net positive or neutral, but reveals that distributional outcomes can be uneven, disadvantaging certain groups and at times reinforcing existing inequalities. Additionally, lower quality jobs or weak labor market regulations may decrease the attractiveness of jobs created or increase job transition costs. These findings provide some justification for increased focus on how climate policies can ensure a “just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs” stipulated in the Paris Agreement, but also suggest that climate action should not be delayed for fear of widespread negative employment impacts. Ex post assessments offer an important lens into the determinants of climate policy employment outcomes and should be advanced and harnessed in support of accelerated and just action.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48253750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Union's pioneering carbon Emissions Trading System, the EU ETS, has inspired countries around the world to launch their own CO2 markets. This paper analyses the evolution of the EU ETS from a political economy perspective, emphasizing the interaction of economic principles and political interests at pivotal moments, and showing how each compromise changed the scope for future design choices. We focus on the allowance allocation issue, which provides a window into the complex tug‐of‐war between economic efficiency and the politics of distribution. Our account highlights the dynamic nature of CO2 market reform, and provides lessons that can help inform the design of more stable and effective CO2 markets in the future.
{"title":"Allocation, allocation, allocation! The political economy of the development of the European Union Emissions Trading System","authors":"Misato Sato, Ryan Rafaty, Raphael Calel, M. Grubb","doi":"10.1002/wcc.796","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.796","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union's pioneering carbon Emissions Trading System, the EU ETS, has inspired countries around the world to launch their own CO2 markets. This paper analyses the evolution of the EU ETS from a political economy perspective, emphasizing the interaction of economic principles and political interests at pivotal moments, and showing how each compromise changed the scope for future design choices. We focus on the allowance allocation issue, which provides a window into the complex tug‐of‐war between economic efficiency and the politics of distribution. Our account highlights the dynamic nature of CO2 market reform, and provides lessons that can help inform the design of more stable and effective CO2 markets in the future.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42755780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
International public finance plays an increasingly prominent role in global efforts to combat climate change and, as it grows, it faces a familiar challenge: governance. Global organizations not only disburse climate funding, but are also expected to ensure the “good governance” of climate programs in recipient countries. Many of these same organizations faced similar challenges in disbursing development finance. In what became known as the “institutionalist turn,” they sought to reform governance and build effective institutions in recipient countries. At first glance, the approach to governance in climate finance appears to be a continuation of these largely ineffective policies. I argue, however, that important structural differences between climate finance and development finance have been overlooked, and that these differences create space for alternatives approaches to governance. I first examine the literature on what led to the ineffectiveness of governance reforms tied to development finance, concluding that global organizations have been consistently unable to recognize and grapple with how power actually works in recipient countries, especially informal power. I then highlight three new principles underlying climate finance: (1) that it is restitution not aid, (2) that recipient countries should control resource allocation, and (3) that funding should support mitigation and adaptation. I demonstrate how each new principle has produced shifts in decision‐making authority away from contributors and toward recipient countries. I discuss how alternative approaches could emerge both from forums where recipient countries exercise newfound authority, and from experimentation on the part of multilateral organizations.
{"title":"Rethinking governance in international climate finance: Structural change and alternative approaches","authors":"K. Browne","doi":"10.1002/wcc.795","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.795","url":null,"abstract":"International public finance plays an increasingly prominent role in global efforts to combat climate change and, as it grows, it faces a familiar challenge: governance. Global organizations not only disburse climate funding, but are also expected to ensure the “good governance” of climate programs in recipient countries. Many of these same organizations faced similar challenges in disbursing development finance. In what became known as the “institutionalist turn,” they sought to reform governance and build effective institutions in recipient countries. At first glance, the approach to governance in climate finance appears to be a continuation of these largely ineffective policies. I argue, however, that important structural differences between climate finance and development finance have been overlooked, and that these differences create space for alternatives approaches to governance. I first examine the literature on what led to the ineffectiveness of governance reforms tied to development finance, concluding that global organizations have been consistently unable to recognize and grapple with how power actually works in recipient countries, especially informal power. I then highlight three new principles underlying climate finance: (1) that it is restitution not aid, (2) that recipient countries should control resource allocation, and (3) that funding should support mitigation and adaptation. I demonstrate how each new principle has produced shifts in decision‐making authority away from contributors and toward recipient countries. I discuss how alternative approaches could emerge both from forums where recipient countries exercise newfound authority, and from experimentation on the part of multilateral organizations.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47704075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. Gannon, Elena Castellano, S. Eskander, Dorice Agol, M. Diop, D. Conway, Elizabeth Sprout
The ability of businesses to adapt effectively to climate change is highly influenced by the external business enabling environment. Constraints to adaptive capacity are experienced by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) across sub‐Saharan Africa, regardless of the gender of the business owner. However, gender is a critical social cleavage through which differences in adaptive capacity manifest and in Africa most entrepreneurs are women. We conduct a systematic review to synthesize existing knowledge on differential vulnerability of female entrepreneurs in Africa to climate risk, in relation to their sensitivity to extreme climate events and their adaptive capacity. We synthesize this literature using a vulnerability analysis approach that situates vulnerability and adaptive capacity within the context of the wider climate risk framework denoted in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. In doing so, we identify gendered barriers and enablers to private sector adaptation and suggest women entrepreneurs face a “triple differential vulnerability” to climate change, wherein they: (1) are often more sensitive to climate risk, as a result of their concentration in certain sectors and types of enterprises (e.g., micro SMEs in the agricultural sector in remote regions); (2) face additional barriers to adaptation in the business environment, including access to finance, technologies, (climate and adaptation) information and supportive policies; and (3) are also often concurrently on the frontline of managing climate risk at household levels. Since various forms of inequality often create compounding experiences of discrimination and vulnerability, we pay particular attention to how factors of differential vulnerability intersect, amplify, and reproduce.
{"title":"The triple differential vulnerability of female entrepreneurs to climate risk in sub‐Saharan Africa: Gendered barriers and enablers to private sector adaptation","authors":"K. Gannon, Elena Castellano, S. Eskander, Dorice Agol, M. Diop, D. Conway, Elizabeth Sprout","doi":"10.1002/wcc.793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.793","url":null,"abstract":"The ability of businesses to adapt effectively to climate change is highly influenced by the external business enabling environment. Constraints to adaptive capacity are experienced by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) across sub‐Saharan Africa, regardless of the gender of the business owner. However, gender is a critical social cleavage through which differences in adaptive capacity manifest and in Africa most entrepreneurs are women. We conduct a systematic review to synthesize existing knowledge on differential vulnerability of female entrepreneurs in Africa to climate risk, in relation to their sensitivity to extreme climate events and their adaptive capacity. We synthesize this literature using a vulnerability analysis approach that situates vulnerability and adaptive capacity within the context of the wider climate risk framework denoted in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. In doing so, we identify gendered barriers and enablers to private sector adaptation and suggest women entrepreneurs face a “triple differential vulnerability” to climate change, wherein they: (1) are often more sensitive to climate risk, as a result of their concentration in certain sectors and types of enterprises (e.g., micro SMEs in the agricultural sector in remote regions); (2) face additional barriers to adaptation in the business environment, including access to finance, technologies, (climate and adaptation) information and supportive policies; and (3) are also often concurrently on the frontline of managing climate risk at household levels. Since various forms of inequality often create compounding experiences of discrimination and vulnerability, we pay particular attention to how factors of differential vulnerability intersect, amplify, and reproduce.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47434711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Paris Agreement marks a significant milestone in international climate politics. With its adoption, Parties call for non‐ and sub‐state actors to contribute to the global climate agenda and close the emissions gap left by states. Such a facilitative setting embraces non‐state climate action through joint efforts, synergies, and different modes of collaboration. At the same time, non‐state actors have always played a critical and confrontational role in international climate governance. Based on a systematic literature review, we identify and critically assess the role of non‐state climate action in a facilitative post‐Paris climate governance regime. We thereby highlight three constitutive themes, namely different state‐non‐state relations, competing level of ambition, and a variety of knowledge foundations. We substantiate these themes, derived from an inductive analysis of existing literature, with illustrative examples and propose three paradigmatic non‐state actor roles in post‐Paris climate governance on a continuum between compliance and critique. We thereby highlight four particular threats of a facilitative setting, namely substitution of state action, co‐optation, tokenism, and depoliticization. Future research should not limit itself to an effective integration of NSSAs into a facilitative climate regime, but also engage with the merits of contestation.
{"title":"Non‐ and sub‐state climate action after Paris: From a facilitative regime to a contested governance landscape","authors":"Jens Marquardt, Cornelia Fast, Julia Grimm","doi":"10.1002/wcc.791","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.791","url":null,"abstract":"The Paris Agreement marks a significant milestone in international climate politics. With its adoption, Parties call for non‐ and sub‐state actors to contribute to the global climate agenda and close the emissions gap left by states. Such a facilitative setting embraces non‐state climate action through joint efforts, synergies, and different modes of collaboration. At the same time, non‐state actors have always played a critical and confrontational role in international climate governance. Based on a systematic literature review, we identify and critically assess the role of non‐state climate action in a facilitative post‐Paris climate governance regime. We thereby highlight three constitutive themes, namely different state‐non‐state relations, competing level of ambition, and a variety of knowledge foundations. We substantiate these themes, derived from an inductive analysis of existing literature, with illustrative examples and propose three paradigmatic non‐state actor roles in post‐Paris climate governance on a continuum between compliance and critique. We thereby highlight four particular threats of a facilitative setting, namely substitution of state action, co‐optation, tokenism, and depoliticization. Future research should not limit itself to an effective integration of NSSAs into a facilitative climate regime, but also engage with the merits of contestation.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41805059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The world's nations are committed to keeping global temperature rises to less than 2°C to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Such a target is crucial for mangrove forests, because they are located primarily in tropical and subtropical regions that are expected to see large changes in climatic conditions; their intertidal location and sensitivity to changes in environmental conditions means that mangroves are expected to be on the front line of climate change impacts. We conceptualize what a 2°C world might look like for mangroves, and in particular the potential negative and positive responses of the mangrove ecosystem to anticipated changes in future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, temperature, sea level, cyclone activity, storminess and changes in the frequency, and magnitude of climatic oscillations. We also assess the spatial distribution of such stressors, their relative contributions to mangrove ecosystem dynamics, and discuss the challenges in attributing mangrove ecosystem dynamics to climate change versus other global change stressors. Such knowledge can help future‐proof conservation and restoration activities, improve the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's confidence level ascribed to climate change impacts on mangrove forests, and highlight the key temperature thresholds beyond which the future of the world's mangroves is less certain.
{"title":"Mangrove forests under climate change in a 2°C world","authors":"D. Friess, M. Adame, J. Adams, C. Lovelock","doi":"10.1002/wcc.792","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.792","url":null,"abstract":"The world's nations are committed to keeping global temperature rises to less than 2°C to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Such a target is crucial for mangrove forests, because they are located primarily in tropical and subtropical regions that are expected to see large changes in climatic conditions; their intertidal location and sensitivity to changes in environmental conditions means that mangroves are expected to be on the front line of climate change impacts. We conceptualize what a 2°C world might look like for mangroves, and in particular the potential negative and positive responses of the mangrove ecosystem to anticipated changes in future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, temperature, sea level, cyclone activity, storminess and changes in the frequency, and magnitude of climatic oscillations. We also assess the spatial distribution of such stressors, their relative contributions to mangrove ecosystem dynamics, and discuss the challenges in attributing mangrove ecosystem dynamics to climate change versus other global change stressors. Such knowledge can help future‐proof conservation and restoration activities, improve the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's confidence level ascribed to climate change impacts on mangrove forests, and highlight the key temperature thresholds beyond which the future of the world's mangroves is less certain.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47164244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
H. Jungkunst, Jan Göpel, T. Horvath, Simone Ott, M. Brunn
Soil organic carbon (SOC) holds the largest terrestrial carbon stock because of soil conditions and processes that favor soil carbon persistence. Vulnerable to climate change, SOC may cross a tipping point toward liberating carbon‐based greenhouse gases, implying massive self‐amplifying SOC‐ climate interactions. Estimates of SOC persistence are challenging as we still lack broad mechanistic insights. Upscaling mechanistic details from small to larger scales is challenging because the driving factors are not available at the needed resolution. Downscaling is problematic as many modeling studies point to the highest uncertainties deriving from the SOC response to climate change, while models themselves have difficulties in replicating contemporary soil properties and dynamics. To bridge the problems of scaling, strict process orientation seems adequate. Holdridge Life Zones (HLZ) classification, as one example, is a climate classification framework at a mesoscale that provides a descriptive approach to facilitate the identification of potential hotspots and coldspots of SOC‐climate interaction. Establishing coordinated experiments across all HLZ, but also including multiple global change drivers, has the potential to advance our understanding of general principles regulating SOC‐climate interaction and SOC persistence. Therefore, regionally tailored solutions for both experiments and modeling are urgently needed and can lead to better management of soil and the ecosystem services provided. Improving “translations” from the scales relevant for process understanding to the scales of decision‐making is key to good management and to predict the fate of our largest terrestrial carbon stock.
{"title":"Global soil organic carbon–climate interactions: Why scales matter","authors":"H. Jungkunst, Jan Göpel, T. Horvath, Simone Ott, M. Brunn","doi":"10.1002/wcc.780","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.780","url":null,"abstract":"Soil organic carbon (SOC) holds the largest terrestrial carbon stock because of soil conditions and processes that favor soil carbon persistence. Vulnerable to climate change, SOC may cross a tipping point toward liberating carbon‐based greenhouse gases, implying massive self‐amplifying SOC‐ climate interactions. Estimates of SOC persistence are challenging as we still lack broad mechanistic insights. Upscaling mechanistic details from small to larger scales is challenging because the driving factors are not available at the needed resolution. Downscaling is problematic as many modeling studies point to the highest uncertainties deriving from the SOC response to climate change, while models themselves have difficulties in replicating contemporary soil properties and dynamics. To bridge the problems of scaling, strict process orientation seems adequate. Holdridge Life Zones (HLZ) classification, as one example, is a climate classification framework at a mesoscale that provides a descriptive approach to facilitate the identification of potential hotspots and coldspots of SOC‐climate interaction. Establishing coordinated experiments across all HLZ, but also including multiple global change drivers, has the potential to advance our understanding of general principles regulating SOC‐climate interaction and SOC persistence. Therefore, regionally tailored solutions for both experiments and modeling are urgently needed and can lead to better management of soil and the ecosystem services provided. Improving “translations” from the scales relevant for process understanding to the scales of decision‐making is key to good management and to predict the fate of our largest terrestrial carbon stock.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46382586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To co‐produce locally relevant climate knowledge, climate scientists are engaging in new collaborations—with stakeholders and with scholars in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. In our work as a Shakespeare scholar‐turned‐public‐humanist and a climate scientist, we have created a methodology that allows researchers and communities to co‐produce knowledge by co‐producing narratives. We combine principles from emerging climate “storylines” research with collaborative storytelling inspired by William Shakespeare's plays and theatrical practices. Shakespeare's plays spark collaborations and interpretations, in part, because of how Shakespeare leaves gaps in the narrative. These gaps allow others to enter as collaborators, creating a “cognitive ecology” that fosters knowledge and action among all engaged. Integrating these methods into climate storyline‐making offers a radical paradigm: it upends the scientist's role as the focal storyteller and expert, and fosters, instead, partnership, equity, and a co‐exploration of multiple uncertainties. It is time for researchers to cede control to a cognitive ecology of collaborative action.
{"title":"Mind the gaps! Climate scientists should heed lessons in collaborative storytelling from William Shakespeare","authors":"L. Shenk, W. Gutowski","doi":"10.1002/wcc.783","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.783","url":null,"abstract":"To co‐produce locally relevant climate knowledge, climate scientists are engaging in new collaborations—with stakeholders and with scholars in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. In our work as a Shakespeare scholar‐turned‐public‐humanist and a climate scientist, we have created a methodology that allows researchers and communities to co‐produce knowledge by co‐producing narratives. We combine principles from emerging climate “storylines” research with collaborative storytelling inspired by William Shakespeare's plays and theatrical practices. Shakespeare's plays spark collaborations and interpretations, in part, because of how Shakespeare leaves gaps in the narrative. These gaps allow others to enter as collaborators, creating a “cognitive ecology” that fosters knowledge and action among all engaged. Integrating these methods into climate storyline‐making offers a radical paradigm: it upends the scientist's role as the focal storyteller and expert, and fosters, instead, partnership, equity, and a co‐exploration of multiple uncertainties. It is time for researchers to cede control to a cognitive ecology of collaborative action.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42602669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
William Stanley Jevons identified what has come to be known as the Jevons paradox: the observation that improvements in energy efficiency are often connected with rising, not falling, energy consumption. This insight informs the subsequent economic concept of the “rebound effect” and the expansive research investigating this relationship. We provide an overview of key empirical research, which establishes that large rebounds in energy consumption connected with rising energy efficiency are common across various units of analysis, including the national, subnational (e.g., states/provinces/cities; power plants), and household levels. We then focus on the range of theoretical arguments that have been put forward to explain why rebounds occur in varying contexts, with particular consideration of implications for efforts to move away from fossil fuels. We emphasize the important distinction between direct effects, indirect effects, and economy‐wide effects in regard to rebounds, particularly those connected with macro‐structural forces, for understanding the causes and implications of the Jevons paradox.
William Stanley Jevons发现了被称为Jevons悖论的现象：能源效率的提高往往与能源消耗的上升而非下降有关。这一见解为随后的“反弹效应”经济学概念以及对这一关系的广泛研究提供了依据。我们提供了关键实证研究的概述，该研究表明，与能源效率提高相关的能源消耗大幅反弹在各个分析单元中都很常见，包括国家、国家以下（例如，州/省/市；发电厂）和家庭层面。然后，我们将重点放在一系列理论论点上，这些论点是为了解释为什么在不同的情况下会出现反弹，并特别考虑到对摆脱化石燃料的影响。我们强调直接效应、间接效应和整个经济的反弹效应之间的重要区别，特别是与宏观结构力有关的反弹效应，以理解杰文斯悖论的原因和含义。
{"title":"The rebound effect and the challenge of moving beyond fossil fuels: A review of empirical and theoretical research","authors":"Richard York, Lazarus Adua, Brett Clark","doi":"10.1002/wcc.782","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.782","url":null,"abstract":"William Stanley Jevons identified what has come to be known as the Jevons paradox: the observation that improvements in energy efficiency are often connected with rising, not falling, energy consumption. This insight informs the subsequent economic concept of the “rebound effect” and the expansive research investigating this relationship. We provide an overview of key empirical research, which establishes that large rebounds in energy consumption connected with rising energy efficiency are common across various units of analysis, including the national, subnational (e.g., states/provinces/cities; power plants), and household levels. We then focus on the range of theoretical arguments that have been put forward to explain why rebounds occur in varying contexts, with particular consideration of implications for efforts to move away from fossil fuels. We emphasize the important distinction between direct effects, indirect effects, and economy‐wide effects in regard to rebounds, particularly those connected with macro‐structural forces, for understanding the causes and implications of the Jevons paradox.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49311354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","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：