Pub Date : 2022-03-01Epub Date: 2021-12-28DOI: 10.1002/wcc.756
Arthur Rempel, Joyeeta Gupta
Most fossil fuel resources must remain unused to comply with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Scholars and policymakers debate which approaches should be undertaken to Leave Fossil Fuels Underground (LFFU). However, existing scholarship has not yet inventoried and evaluated the array of approaches to LFFU based on their effectiveness, equity, or feasibility. Hence, this review article asks: What lessons can we learn from reviewing scholarship on proposed approaches to leaving fossil fuels underground (LFFU)? We identify 28 unique LFFU approaches, of which only 12 are deemed environmentally effective (e.g., fossil fuel extraction taxes, bans and moratoria, and financial swaps); eight involve moderate-to-high (non-)monetary costs, and only four are deemed entirely just and equitable. Of the 12 environmentally effective approaches: only three were deemed cost-effective (regulating financial capital for fossil fuel projects, removing existing fossil fuel subsidies, and bans & moratoria); merely four were deemed equitable (asset write-offs, retiring existing fossil infrastructure, pursuing court cases/litigation, and financial swaps); and all were deemed institutionally problematic in terms of their feasibility (six were challenging to implement as they threatened the vested interests of powerful stakeholder groups). Moreover, the reviewed scholarship draws heavily on empirical studies of how these LFFU approaches can be optimized in European, North American, and Chinese contexts; fewer studies have explored the effectiveness and fairness of LFFU approaches in the South and/or in a North-South context. Future research should particularly focus on North-South fossil fuel financial flows, which have received comparatively little attention. This article is categorized under:The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand.
{"title":"Equitable, effective, and feasible approaches for a prospective fossil fuel transition.","authors":"Arthur Rempel, Joyeeta Gupta","doi":"10.1002/wcc.756","DOIUrl":"10.1002/wcc.756","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Most fossil fuel resources must remain unused to comply with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Scholars and policymakers debate which approaches should be undertaken to Leave Fossil Fuels Underground (LFFU). However, existing scholarship has not yet inventoried and evaluated the array of approaches to LFFU based on their effectiveness, equity, or feasibility. Hence, this review article asks: <i>What lessons can we learn from reviewing scholarship on proposed approaches to leaving fossil fuels underground (LFFU)?</i> We identify 28 unique LFFU approaches, of which only 12 are deemed environmentally effective (e.g., fossil fuel extraction taxes, bans and moratoria, and financial swaps); eight involve moderate-to-high (non-)monetary costs, and only four are deemed entirely just and equitable. Of the 12 environmentally effective approaches: only three were deemed cost-effective (regulating financial capital for fossil fuel projects, removing existing fossil fuel subsidies, and bans & moratoria); merely four were deemed equitable (asset write-offs, retiring existing fossil infrastructure, pursuing court cases/litigation, and financial swaps); and all were deemed institutionally problematic in terms of their feasibility (six were challenging to implement as they threatened the vested interests of powerful stakeholder groups). Moreover, the reviewed scholarship draws heavily on empirical studies of how these LFFU approaches can be optimized in European, North American, and Chinese contexts; fewer studies have explored the effectiveness and fairness of LFFU approaches in the South and/or in a North-South context. Future research should particularly focus on North-South fossil fuel financial flows, which have received comparatively little attention. This article is categorized under:The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand.</p>","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":"13 2","pages":"e756"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bb/71/WCC-13-0.PMC9286627.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40636921","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
All over the world, farming communities need to adapt to a changing climate. At the same time, they are confronted by the necessity to increase food availability for a growing population, but also to ensure a sustainable use of natural resources. In this process, agriculture is not just the fiend responsible for an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, nor the victim of rising temperatures and extreme weather events. Agriculture is also an ally in climate change mitigation and adaptation because the selection of ad hoc crop varieties and livestock can lower the environmental impact of farming and the implementation of better management practices can promote soil conservation. Whether agriculture will have a positive or a negative impact on climate change adaptation and mitigation will depend on the rural policies implemented, but it will also be contingent on an adequate understanding of the interconnections existing between weather, climate, and farming. This review explores such interconnections by focusing on the history of agricultural meteorology, which is the research field that studies the impact of weather and climate on crops, livestock, farming operations, and plant and animal pests and diseases. The article discusses stakeholders, institutions, and main developments in agricultural meteorology, and describes how the agenda of agricultural meteorology has shifted over time. At the beginning of the 20th century, research in agricultural meteorology focused on increasing the profitability of farming. In the 21st century, instead, the main goal of agricultural meteorology is to ensure food security and guarantee sustainability.
{"title":"Weather, climate, and agriculture: Historical contributions and perspectives from agricultural meteorology","authors":"G. Parolini","doi":"10.1002/wcc.766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.766","url":null,"abstract":"All over the world, farming communities need to adapt to a changing climate. At the same time, they are confronted by the necessity to increase food availability for a growing population, but also to ensure a sustainable use of natural resources. In this process, agriculture is not just the fiend responsible for an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, nor the victim of rising temperatures and extreme weather events. Agriculture is also an ally in climate change mitigation and adaptation because the selection of ad hoc crop varieties and livestock can lower the environmental impact of farming and the implementation of better management practices can promote soil conservation. Whether agriculture will have a positive or a negative impact on climate change adaptation and mitigation will depend on the rural policies implemented, but it will also be contingent on an adequate understanding of the interconnections existing between weather, climate, and farming. This review explores such interconnections by focusing on the history of agricultural meteorology, which is the research field that studies the impact of weather and climate on crops, livestock, farming operations, and plant and animal pests and diseases. The article discusses stakeholders, institutions, and main developments in agricultural meteorology, and describes how the agenda of agricultural meteorology has shifted over time. At the beginning of the 20th century, research in agricultural meteorology focused on increasing the profitability of farming. In the 21st century, instead, the main goal of agricultural meteorology is to ensure food security and guarantee sustainability.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45932744","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 notion of disproportionate impacts of climate change on certain groups and regions has long been a part of policy debates and scientific inquiry, and was instrumental to the emergence of the “Loss and Damage” (L&D) policy agenda in international negotiations on climate change. Yet, ‘disproportionality’ remains relatively undefined and implicit in science on loss and damage from climate change. A coherent theoretical basis of disproportionality is needed for advancing science and policy on loss and damage. It is necessary to ask: What is disproportionate, to whom, and in relation to what? We critically examine the uses of disproportionality in loss and damage scholarship by analyzing how disproportionality is treated in the literature conceptually, methodologically, and empirically. We review publications against a set of criteria derived from seminal work on disproportionality in other fields, mainly environmental justice and disaster studies that have analyzed environment–society interactions. We find disproportionality to be dynamic and multidimensional, spanning the themes of risks, impacts, and burdens. Our results show that while the concept is often used in loss and damage scholarship, its use relies on unarticulated notions of justice and often lacks conceptual, methodological and empirical grounding. Disproportionality also appears as a boundary concept, enabling critical and multiscalar explorations of historical processes that shape the uneven impacts of climate change, alongside social justice and normative claims for desired futures. This emerging area of science offers an opportunity to critically re‐evaluate the conceptualization of the relationship between climate‐change‐related impacts, development, and inequality.
{"title":"A critical review of disproportionality in loss and damage from climate change","authors":"Kelly Dorkenoo, M. Scown, E. Boyd","doi":"10.1002/wcc.770","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.770","url":null,"abstract":"The notion of disproportionate impacts of climate change on certain groups and regions has long been a part of policy debates and scientific inquiry, and was instrumental to the emergence of the “Loss and Damage” (L&D) policy agenda in international negotiations on climate change. Yet, ‘disproportionality’ remains relatively undefined and implicit in science on loss and damage from climate change. A coherent theoretical basis of disproportionality is needed for advancing science and policy on loss and damage. It is necessary to ask: What is disproportionate, to whom, and in relation to what? We critically examine the uses of disproportionality in loss and damage scholarship by analyzing how disproportionality is treated in the literature conceptually, methodologically, and empirically. We review publications against a set of criteria derived from seminal work on disproportionality in other fields, mainly environmental justice and disaster studies that have analyzed environment–society interactions. We find disproportionality to be dynamic and multidimensional, spanning the themes of risks, impacts, and burdens. Our results show that while the concept is often used in loss and damage scholarship, its use relies on unarticulated notions of justice and often lacks conceptual, methodological and empirical grounding. Disproportionality also appears as a boundary concept, enabling critical and multiscalar explorations of historical processes that shape the uneven impacts of climate change, alongside social justice and normative claims for desired futures. This emerging area of science offers an opportunity to critically re‐evaluate the conceptualization of the relationship between climate‐change‐related impacts, development, and inequality.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47369528","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}
A. Foley, S. Moncada, M. Mycoo, P. Nunn, V. Tandrayen‐Ragoobur, Christopher Evans
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have been impacted by and responded to COVID‐19 in ways that give us clues about vulnerabilities under climate change, as well as pathways to resilience. Here, we reflect on some of these experiences drawing on case study examples from the Caribbean, Pacific, and Indian Ocean SIDS, exploring how SIDS have responded to COVID‐19 and considering the potential for coping mechanisms enacted for the pandemic to support long‐term resilience to climate change. Island responses to the pandemic highlight both new directions, like tourist schemes that capitalize on the rise of remote working in Barbados and Mauritius, and reliance on tried and tested coping mechanisms, like bartering in Fiji. Some of the actions undertaken to respond to the pressures of the pandemic, such as visa schemes promoting “digital nomadism” and efforts to grow domestic food production, have climate resilience and equity dimensions that must be unpacked if their potential to contribute to more sustainable island futures is to be realized. Importantly, the diversity of contexts and experiences described here illustrates that there is no single “best” pathway to climate‐resilient post‐pandemic futures for SIDS. While the emerging rhetoric of COVID‐19 recovery often speaks of “roadmaps,” we argue that the journey towards a climate‐resilient COVID‐19 recovery for SIDS is likely to involve detours, as solutions emerge through innovation and experiment, and knowledge‐sharing across the wider SIDS community.
{"title":"Small Island Developing States in a post‐pandemic world: Challenges and opportunities for climate action","authors":"A. Foley, S. Moncada, M. Mycoo, P. Nunn, V. Tandrayen‐Ragoobur, Christopher Evans","doi":"10.1002/wcc.769","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.769","url":null,"abstract":"Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have been impacted by and responded to COVID‐19 in ways that give us clues about vulnerabilities under climate change, as well as pathways to resilience. Here, we reflect on some of these experiences drawing on case study examples from the Caribbean, Pacific, and Indian Ocean SIDS, exploring how SIDS have responded to COVID‐19 and considering the potential for coping mechanisms enacted for the pandemic to support long‐term resilience to climate change. Island responses to the pandemic highlight both new directions, like tourist schemes that capitalize on the rise of remote working in Barbados and Mauritius, and reliance on tried and tested coping mechanisms, like bartering in Fiji. Some of the actions undertaken to respond to the pressures of the pandemic, such as visa schemes promoting “digital nomadism” and efforts to grow domestic food production, have climate resilience and equity dimensions that must be unpacked if their potential to contribute to more sustainable island futures is to be realized. Importantly, the diversity of contexts and experiences described here illustrates that there is no single “best” pathway to climate‐resilient post‐pandemic futures for SIDS. While the emerging rhetoric of COVID‐19 recovery often speaks of “roadmaps,” we argue that the journey towards a climate‐resilient COVID‐19 recovery for SIDS is likely to involve detours, as solutions emerge through innovation and experiment, and knowledge‐sharing across the wider SIDS community.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45508426","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}
Decarbonizing the energy system is critical for addressing climate change. Given the dominance of fossil fuels in the energy system, decarbonization requires rapid and significant industrial transition of the energy supply at scale. This includes explicit and coordinated plans not only for zero carbon phase‐in, but for fossil carbon phase‐out. Even very rapid decarbonization will likely take decades, leading to a medium‐term future where the conventional, fossil‐based energy system coexists with a new, zero‐carbon energy system. Each imposes operational constraints on the other: what we call the mid‐transition. Notably, this coexistence means that the new, zero‐carbon system will develop under fossil carbon system constraints. The mid‐transition will therefore likely require specific analytical metrics designed to support decision making under dynamic and uncertain conditions. Many aspects of transition will be felt, and shaped, directly by individuals because of our direct interactions with energy systems. Even rare missteps are likely to have significant and potentially system design‐relevant impacts on perception, political support, and implementation. Comparisons of the new system to the old system are likely to rest on experience of a world less affected by climate change, such that concerns about lower reliability, higher costs, and other challenges might be perceived as inherent to zero‐carbon systems, versus energy systems facing consequences of climate change and long‐term underinvestment. This review assesses and evaluates medium‐term challenges associated with the mid‐transition in the United States, emphasizing the need for explicit planning for joint and coordinated phase‐in and phase‐out.
{"title":"Designing the mid‐transition: A review of medium‐term challenges for coordinated decarbonization in the United States","authors":"E. Grubert, S. Hastings-Simon","doi":"10.1002/wcc.768","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.768","url":null,"abstract":"Decarbonizing the energy system is critical for addressing climate change. Given the dominance of fossil fuels in the energy system, decarbonization requires rapid and significant industrial transition of the energy supply at scale. This includes explicit and coordinated plans not only for zero carbon phase‐in, but for fossil carbon phase‐out. Even very rapid decarbonization will likely take decades, leading to a medium‐term future where the conventional, fossil‐based energy system coexists with a new, zero‐carbon energy system. Each imposes operational constraints on the other: what we call the mid‐transition. Notably, this coexistence means that the new, zero‐carbon system will develop under fossil carbon system constraints. The mid‐transition will therefore likely require specific analytical metrics designed to support decision making under dynamic and uncertain conditions. Many aspects of transition will be felt, and shaped, directly by individuals because of our direct interactions with energy systems. Even rare missteps are likely to have significant and potentially system design‐relevant impacts on perception, political support, and implementation. Comparisons of the new system to the old system are likely to rest on experience of a world less affected by climate change, such that concerns about lower reliability, higher costs, and other challenges might be perceived as inherent to zero‐carbon systems, versus energy systems facing consequences of climate change and long‐term underinvestment. This review assesses and evaluates medium‐term challenges associated with the mid‐transition in the United States, emphasizing the need for explicit planning for joint and coordinated phase‐in and phase‐out.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48915613","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}
Climate change is a defining element of the current ecological landscape, with consequences ranging from global to local environments. One of the first indices of the ecological impact of the ongoing environmental changes was measurement of their effects on phenology, the seasonal timing of recurring annual events such as the beginning of the growing season, timing of flowering, and breeding seasons of animals. Research has moved beyond simple descriptions of these temporal changes to investigations of their root causes, impacts, and consequences at both ecological and evolutionary time scales. This changing landscape, environmental, ecological, and evolutionary, makes this an exciting, albeit sometimes depressing, time to be a scientist.
{"title":"Climate change and phenology","authors":"D. Inouye","doi":"10.1002/wcc.764","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.764","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change is a defining element of the current ecological landscape, with consequences ranging from global to local environments. One of the first indices of the ecological impact of the ongoing environmental changes was measurement of their effects on phenology, the seasonal timing of recurring annual events such as the beginning of the growing season, timing of flowering, and breeding seasons of animals. Research has moved beyond simple descriptions of these temporal changes to investigations of their root causes, impacts, and consequences at both ecological and evolutionary time scales. This changing landscape, environmental, ecological, and evolutionary, makes this an exciting, albeit sometimes depressing, time to be a scientist.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48790215","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}
Lay people tend to prefer natural solutions for carbon removal over technological ones. Researchers have argued that all carbon removal methods can be seen as “natural.” Here I argue that it is also in practice necessary to see all carbon removal methods as “technological,” that is, standardized, engineered, machine‐like, enclosed systems. Natural carbon removal methods are complex socio‐natural‐technical messy systems that interact in complex ways with their environments. But to work well in practice as an option in climate policy—including in any emissions trading or offsetting schemes—they simultaneously need to be framed in much narrower terms, to be accountable (modellable, tradeable). And there will be efforts to not just frame, but physically make natural carbon removal as standardized, engineered, machine‐like and enclosed as possible—although doomed to never be fully successful. It is in these senses that all carbon removal is technological. The ambiguity between an often vague framing as natural, a narrowly technological framing, and a wider socio‐natural‐technical framing, matters for public understanding and acceptance. Would lay publics still prefer natural solutions to carbon removal, if they are informed about the inevitable technological framing and shaping of them? Research is needed about this. It also matters for the risk of mitigation deterrence. Previous research shows that the narrow framing, of carbon removal methods as technology is implicated in societal processes that deter efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
{"title":"Natural carbon removal as technology","authors":"Nils Markusson","doi":"10.1002/wcc.767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.767","url":null,"abstract":"Lay people tend to prefer natural solutions for carbon removal over technological ones. Researchers have argued that all carbon removal methods can be seen as “natural.” Here I argue that it is also in practice necessary to see all carbon removal methods as “technological,” that is, standardized, engineered, machine‐like, enclosed systems. Natural carbon removal methods are complex socio‐natural‐technical messy systems that interact in complex ways with their environments. But to work well in practice as an option in climate policy—including in any emissions trading or offsetting schemes—they simultaneously need to be framed in much narrower terms, to be accountable (modellable, tradeable). And there will be efforts to not just frame, but physically make natural carbon removal as standardized, engineered, machine‐like and enclosed as possible—although doomed to never be fully successful. It is in these senses that all carbon removal is technological. The ambiguity between an often vague framing as natural, a narrowly technological framing, and a wider socio‐natural‐technical framing, matters for public understanding and acceptance. Would lay publics still prefer natural solutions to carbon removal, if they are informed about the inevitable technological framing and shaping of them? Research is needed about this. It also matters for the risk of mitigation deterrence. Previous research shows that the narrow framing, of carbon removal methods as technology is implicated in societal processes that deter efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45404568","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}
Birgit Bednar‐Friedl, Nina Knittel, Joachim Raich, K. Adams
There is growing recognition that international trade can transmit climate risks across borders, requiring new forms of and approaches to adaptation. This advanced review synthesizes knowledge on how, by whom and where adaptation actions can be taken in the agriculture and industrial sectors to reduce these transboundary climate risks (TCRs). We find a material difference in the literature on TCRs in agriculture as compared with industrial sectors. Operational and market risks, in particular reductions in food availability, dominate in agriculture, while supply chain and trade‐related risks are highlighted for industry. While the origin of the risk (source) is the primary target of adaptation to agricultural TCRs, the general governance structure, such as UNFCCC and WTO deliberations, are important targets in both sectors. Adaptation at the country of destination and along the trade network is of minor importance in both sectors. Regarding the type of adaptation option, agriculture heavily relies on trade policy, agricultural adaptation, and adaptation planning and coordination, while in industry knowledge creation, research and development, and risk management are seen as essential. Governments and the international community are identified as key actors, complemented by businesses and research as critical players in industry. Some measures, such as protectionist trade policies and irrigation, are controversial as they shift risks across countries and sectors, rather than reduce them. While more research is needed, this review shows that a critical mass of evidence on adaptation to TCRs is beginning to emerge, particularly underscoring the importance of international coordination mechanisms.
{"title":"Adaptation to transboundary climate risks in trade: Investigating actors and strategies for an emerging challenge","authors":"Birgit Bednar‐Friedl, Nina Knittel, Joachim Raich, K. Adams","doi":"10.1002/wcc.758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.758","url":null,"abstract":"There is growing recognition that international trade can transmit climate risks across borders, requiring new forms of and approaches to adaptation. This advanced review synthesizes knowledge on how, by whom and where adaptation actions can be taken in the agriculture and industrial sectors to reduce these transboundary climate risks (TCRs). We find a material difference in the literature on TCRs in agriculture as compared with industrial sectors. Operational and market risks, in particular reductions in food availability, dominate in agriculture, while supply chain and trade‐related risks are highlighted for industry. While the origin of the risk (source) is the primary target of adaptation to agricultural TCRs, the general governance structure, such as UNFCCC and WTO deliberations, are important targets in both sectors. Adaptation at the country of destination and along the trade network is of minor importance in both sectors. Regarding the type of adaptation option, agriculture heavily relies on trade policy, agricultural adaptation, and adaptation planning and coordination, while in industry knowledge creation, research and development, and risk management are seen as essential. Governments and the international community are identified as key actors, complemented by businesses and research as critical players in industry. Some measures, such as protectionist trade policies and irrigation, are controversial as they shift risks across countries and sectors, rather than reduce them. While more research is needed, this review shows that a critical mass of evidence on adaptation to TCRs is beginning to emerge, particularly underscoring the importance of international coordination mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42189431","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}
Madeleine Orr, Yuhei Inoue, Russell Seymour, G. Dingle
The relationship between sport and the environment has been primarily examined to understand how sport impacts the natural environment. However, as the influence of climate change has become more apparent, there is a need to establish a systematic understanding of the impacts of climate change on the operations of sport. The aim of this review is to take stock of existing literature on climate change's impacts on organized competitive sport entities, with further attention paid to their adaptation efforts. A scoping review was conducted to identify relevant studies published between 1995 and 2021. After evaluating more than 2100 publications, we retained 57 articles and analyzed them to answer the research questions: (1) What evidence is available regarding the impacts of climate change on the operation of organized competitive sport entities? (2) What is known from the literature about the measures taken by organized competitive sport entities to adapt to the impacts of climate change? Our analysis yielded five major themes: (1) Heat impacts on athlete and spectator health; (2) heat impacts on athlete performance; (3) adaptive measures taken in sport; (4) suitability of various cities for event hosting; and (5) benchmarking and boundary conditions. This review reveals that there is evidence of some climate change impacts on sport, but the literature reflects only a small share of the global sport sector. Equally, much remains to be understood about the nature of adaptation.
{"title":"Impacts of climate change on organized sport: A scoping review","authors":"Madeleine Orr, Yuhei Inoue, Russell Seymour, G. Dingle","doi":"10.1002/wcc.760","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.760","url":null,"abstract":"The relationship between sport and the environment has been primarily examined to understand how sport impacts the natural environment. However, as the influence of climate change has become more apparent, there is a need to establish a systematic understanding of the impacts of climate change on the operations of sport. The aim of this review is to take stock of existing literature on climate change's impacts on organized competitive sport entities, with further attention paid to their adaptation efforts. A scoping review was conducted to identify relevant studies published between 1995 and 2021. After evaluating more than 2100 publications, we retained 57 articles and analyzed them to answer the research questions: (1) What evidence is available regarding the impacts of climate change on the operation of organized competitive sport entities? (2) What is known from the literature about the measures taken by organized competitive sport entities to adapt to the impacts of climate change? Our analysis yielded five major themes: (1) Heat impacts on athlete and spectator health; (2) heat impacts on athlete performance; (3) adaptive measures taken in sport; (4) suitability of various cities for event hosting; and (5) benchmarking and boundary conditions. This review reveals that there is evidence of some climate change impacts on sport, but the literature reflects only a small share of the global sport sector. Equally, much remains to be understood about the nature of adaptation.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46659166","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}
Alice Garcia, Noémi Gonda, Ed Atkins, N. Godden, Karen Paiva Henrique, Meg Parsons, P. Tschakert, G. Ziervogel
Resilience thinking has undergone profound theoretical developments in recent decades, moving to characterize resilience as a socio‐natural process that requires constant negotiation between a range of actors and institutions. Fundamental to this understanding has been a growing acknowledgment of the role of power in shaping resilience capacities and politics across cultural and geographic contexts. This review article draws on a critical content analysis, applied to a systematic review of recent resilience literature to examine how scholarship has embraced nuanced conceptualizations of how power operates in resilience efforts, to move away from framings that risk reinforcing patterns of marginalization. Advancing a framework inspired by feminist theory and feminist political ecology, we analyze how recent work has presented, documented, and conceptualized how resilience intersects with patterns of inequity. In doing so, we illuminate the importance of knowledge, scale, and subject making in understanding the complex ways in which power and resilience become interlinked. We illustrate how overlooking such complexity may have serious consequences for how socio‐natural challenges and solutions are framed in resilience scholarship and, in turn, how resilience is planned and enacted in practice. Finally, we highlight how recent scholarship is advancing the understandings necessary to make sense of the shifting, contested, and power‐laden nature of resilience. Paying attention to, and building on, such complexity will allow scholarly work to illuminate the ways in which resilience is negotiated within inequitable processes and to address the marginalization of those continuing to bear the brunt of the climate crisis.
{"title":"Power in resilience and resilience's power in climate change scholarship","authors":"Alice Garcia, Noémi Gonda, Ed Atkins, N. Godden, Karen Paiva Henrique, Meg Parsons, P. Tschakert, G. Ziervogel","doi":"10.1002/wcc.762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.762","url":null,"abstract":"Resilience thinking has undergone profound theoretical developments in recent decades, moving to characterize resilience as a socio‐natural process that requires constant negotiation between a range of actors and institutions. Fundamental to this understanding has been a growing acknowledgment of the role of power in shaping resilience capacities and politics across cultural and geographic contexts. This review article draws on a critical content analysis, applied to a systematic review of recent resilience literature to examine how scholarship has embraced nuanced conceptualizations of how power operates in resilience efforts, to move away from framings that risk reinforcing patterns of marginalization. Advancing a framework inspired by feminist theory and feminist political ecology, we analyze how recent work has presented, documented, and conceptualized how resilience intersects with patterns of inequity. In doing so, we illuminate the importance of knowledge, scale, and subject making in understanding the complex ways in which power and resilience become interlinked. We illustrate how overlooking such complexity may have serious consequences for how socio‐natural challenges and solutions are framed in resilience scholarship and, in turn, how resilience is planned and enacted in practice. Finally, we highlight how recent scholarship is advancing the understandings necessary to make sense of the shifting, contested, and power‐laden nature of resilience. Paying attention to, and building on, such complexity will allow scholarly work to illuminate the ways in which resilience is negotiated within inequitable processes and to address the marginalization of those continuing to bear the brunt of the climate crisis.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46979518","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}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号