Non-technical summary When developing and deploying negative emissions technologies (NETs), little attention has been paid to where. On the one hand, one might develop NETs where they are likely to contribute most to global mitigation targets, contributing to a global climate solution. On the other hand, one might develop NETs where they can help support development on a regional basis, justified by regional demands. I defend these arguments and suggest that they reflect the values of efficiency and responding to need, respectively. To the extent that these values conflict, they introduce what I call the Need-Efficiency Trade-off Effect (‘NET Effect’). Technical summary Unlike other geoengineering methods, the effectiveness of negative emissions technologies (NETs) tends to be sensitive to regional siting. This paper argues that this point raises morally and legally important implications by identifying a trade-off between ‘efficiency’ and ‘need’. First, it introduces two arguments justifying NETs: one focused on contributions to global mitigation and the other focused on contributions to regional development. Second, reflecting the two arguments, the paper discusses the moral values of efficiency and need, respectively. For instance, if the strategy is to try to use NETs to maximize expected mitigation contributions to reflect efficiency, then deployment should occur in regions with the best prospects for success (e.g. Western countries). However, if the strategy is to try to use NETs to improve the chances of simultaneous development and mitigation to respond to need, then deployment should occur in regions with limited development and expected growth of demand for NETs (e.g. Asian countries). When these values conflict, I call that a Need-Efficiency Trade-off Effect (‘NET Effect’). The paper concludes by considering the NET Effect in the context of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage as well as direct air carbon capture and storage. Social media summary Should negative emissions technologies be deployed in Western countries for most climate action or Asian where needed for development?
{"title":"The NET effect: negative emissions technologies and the need–efficiency trade-off","authors":"Kian Mintz‐Woo","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.3","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary When developing and deploying negative emissions technologies (NETs), little attention has been paid to where. On the one hand, one might develop NETs where they are likely to contribute most to global mitigation targets, contributing to a global climate solution. On the other hand, one might develop NETs where they can help support development on a regional basis, justified by regional demands. I defend these arguments and suggest that they reflect the values of efficiency and responding to need, respectively. To the extent that these values conflict, they introduce what I call the Need-Efficiency Trade-off Effect (‘NET Effect’). Technical summary Unlike other geoengineering methods, the effectiveness of negative emissions technologies (NETs) tends to be sensitive to regional siting. This paper argues that this point raises morally and legally important implications by identifying a trade-off between ‘efficiency’ and ‘need’. First, it introduces two arguments justifying NETs: one focused on contributions to global mitigation and the other focused on contributions to regional development. Second, reflecting the two arguments, the paper discusses the moral values of efficiency and need, respectively. For instance, if the strategy is to try to use NETs to maximize expected mitigation contributions to reflect efficiency, then deployment should occur in regions with the best prospects for success (e.g. Western countries). However, if the strategy is to try to use NETs to improve the chances of simultaneous development and mitigation to respond to need, then deployment should occur in regions with limited development and expected growth of demand for NETs (e.g. Asian countries). When these values conflict, I call that a Need-Efficiency Trade-off Effect (‘NET Effect’). The paper concludes by considering the NET Effect in the context of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage as well as direct air carbon capture and storage. Social media summary Should negative emissions technologies be deployed in Western countries for most climate action or Asian where needed for development?","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47545813","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}
Non-technical summary Cities in the distant past – as documented by archaeologists and historians – provide an extensive record of urban successes and failures, yet this information has had little impact on the field of sustainability science. I explore two reasons for this situation. First, these scholars have often failed to synthesize their data scientifically, and, second, they have not approached the transfer of past knowledge to present research in a rigorous manner. I organize discussion of these issues around three arguments for the present value of past cities: the urban trajectory argument, the sample size argument, and the laboratory argument. Technical summary I explore the different ways historical and archaeological data can be deployed to contribute to research on urban sustainability science, emphasizing issues of argumentation and epistemology. I organize the discussion around three types of argument. The urban trajectory argument exploits the long time series of early cities and urban regions to examine change at a long time scale. The sample size argument views the role of early cities as adding to the known sample of settlements to increase understanding of urban similarities and differences. The laboratory argument uses data from past cities to explicitly test models derived from contemporary cities. Each argument is examined for three contrasting epistemological approaches: heuristic analogs, case studies, and quantitative studies. These approaches form a continuum leading from lesser to greater scientific rigor and from qualitative to quantitative frameworks. Much past-to-present argumentation requires inductive logic, also called reasoning by analogy. Sustainability scientists have confused this general form of argument with its weakest version, known as heuristic analogs. I stress ways to improve methods of argumentation, particularly by moving research along the continuum from weaker to stronger arguments. Social media summary Better methods of argument allow the past record of urban success and failure to contribute to urban sustainability science.
{"title":"How can research on past urban adaptations be made useful for sustainability science?","authors":"Michael E. Smith","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.2","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Cities in the distant past – as documented by archaeologists and historians – provide an extensive record of urban successes and failures, yet this information has had little impact on the field of sustainability science. I explore two reasons for this situation. First, these scholars have often failed to synthesize their data scientifically, and, second, they have not approached the transfer of past knowledge to present research in a rigorous manner. I organize discussion of these issues around three arguments for the present value of past cities: the urban trajectory argument, the sample size argument, and the laboratory argument. Technical summary I explore the different ways historical and archaeological data can be deployed to contribute to research on urban sustainability science, emphasizing issues of argumentation and epistemology. I organize the discussion around three types of argument. The urban trajectory argument exploits the long time series of early cities and urban regions to examine change at a long time scale. The sample size argument views the role of early cities as adding to the known sample of settlements to increase understanding of urban similarities and differences. The laboratory argument uses data from past cities to explicitly test models derived from contemporary cities. Each argument is examined for three contrasting epistemological approaches: heuristic analogs, case studies, and quantitative studies. These approaches form a continuum leading from lesser to greater scientific rigor and from qualitative to quantitative frameworks. Much past-to-present argumentation requires inductive logic, also called reasoning by analogy. Sustainability scientists have confused this general form of argument with its weakest version, known as heuristic analogs. I stress ways to improve methods of argumentation, particularly by moving research along the continuum from weaker to stronger arguments. Social media summary Better methods of argument allow the past record of urban success and failure to contribute to urban sustainability science.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45131623","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}
Non-technical summary As green spaces, lawns are often thought to capture carbon from the atmosphere. However, once mowing, fertlising and irrigation are taken into account, we show that they become carbon sources, at least in the long run. Converting unused urban and rural lawn and grassland to treescapes can make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing carbon absorption from the atmosphere. However, it is imperative for governing bodies to put in place appropriate policies and incentives in order to achieve this. Technical summary Mown grass or lawn is a ubiquitous form of vegetation in human-dominated landscapes and it is often claimed to perform an ecosystem service by sequestering soil carbon. If lawn maintenance is included, however, we show that lawns become net carbon emitters. We estimate that globally, if one-third of mown grass in cities was returned to treescapes, 310–1630 million tonnes of carbon could be absorbed from the atmosphere, and up to 43 tonnes of carbon equivalent per hectare of emissions could be avoided over a two-decade time span. We therefore propose that local and central governments introduce policies to incentivise and/or regulate the conversion of underutilised grass into treescapes. Social media summary If unused lawns were planted with trees, a gigaton of carbon could be removed from the atmosphere over two decades.
{"title":"Calling time on the imperial lawn and the imperative for greenhouse gas mitigation","authors":"L. Gillman, B. Bollard, S. Leuzinger","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.1","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary As green spaces, lawns are often thought to capture carbon from the atmosphere. However, once mowing, fertlising and irrigation are taken into account, we show that they become carbon sources, at least in the long run. Converting unused urban and rural lawn and grassland to treescapes can make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing carbon absorption from the atmosphere. However, it is imperative for governing bodies to put in place appropriate policies and incentives in order to achieve this. Technical summary Mown grass or lawn is a ubiquitous form of vegetation in human-dominated landscapes and it is often claimed to perform an ecosystem service by sequestering soil carbon. If lawn maintenance is included, however, we show that lawns become net carbon emitters. We estimate that globally, if one-third of mown grass in cities was returned to treescapes, 310–1630 million tonnes of carbon could be absorbed from the atmosphere, and up to 43 tonnes of carbon equivalent per hectare of emissions could be avoided over a two-decade time span. We therefore propose that local and central governments introduce policies to incentivise and/or regulate the conversion of underutilised grass into treescapes. Social media summary If unused lawns were planted with trees, a gigaton of carbon could be removed from the atmosphere over two decades.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48301418","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}
{"title":"Ten new insights in climate science 2022 – CORRIGENDUM","authors":"M. Martín, E. A. Boakye, E. Boyd","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.21","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48531379","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}
Non-technical summary A widely held belief is that once the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, especially by affluent populations, the necessary support for a politics prioritising ambitious emissions reductions will follow. But consideration of the indirect socioeconomic impacts of warming suggests this could be false hope. Technical summary There is some evidence to support the common intuition that, as the direct impacts of warming intensify – particularly in the affluent Global North – a politics ambitious enough to confront the climate emergency may finally find support. However, it seems at least equally likely that the opposite trend will prevail. This proposition can be understood by considering various indirect impacts of warming, including the widening of socioeconomic inequalities (within and between countries), increases in migration (intra- and inter-nationally) and heightened risk of conflict (from violence and war through to hate speech and crime). Compiling these impacts reveals a considerable and highly inconvenient overlap with key drivers of the authoritarian populism that has proliferated in the 21st century. It highlights the risk of a socio-ecological feedback loop where the consequences of warming create a political environment entirely at odds with that required to reduce emissions. Such a future is, of course, far from inevitable. Nonetheless, the risks highlight the urgent need to find public support for combined solutions to climate change and inequality, which go well beyond the status-quo. This is necessary not only for reasons of economic and climate justice, but in order to mitigate political barriers to carbon mitigation itself. Social media summary As the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, we may vote for precisely the wrong people.
{"title":"Why the impacts of climate change may make us less likely to reduce emissions","authors":"J. Millward-Hopkins","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.20","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary A widely held belief is that once the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, especially by affluent populations, the necessary support for a politics prioritising ambitious emissions reductions will follow. But consideration of the indirect socioeconomic impacts of warming suggests this could be false hope. Technical summary There is some evidence to support the common intuition that, as the direct impacts of warming intensify – particularly in the affluent Global North – a politics ambitious enough to confront the climate emergency may finally find support. However, it seems at least equally likely that the opposite trend will prevail. This proposition can be understood by considering various indirect impacts of warming, including the widening of socioeconomic inequalities (within and between countries), increases in migration (intra- and inter-nationally) and heightened risk of conflict (from violence and war through to hate speech and crime). Compiling these impacts reveals a considerable and highly inconvenient overlap with key drivers of the authoritarian populism that has proliferated in the 21st century. It highlights the risk of a socio-ecological feedback loop where the consequences of warming create a political environment entirely at odds with that required to reduce emissions. Such a future is, of course, far from inevitable. Nonetheless, the risks highlight the urgent need to find public support for combined solutions to climate change and inequality, which go well beyond the status-quo. This is necessary not only for reasons of economic and climate justice, but in order to mitigate political barriers to carbon mitigation itself. Social media summary As the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, we may vote for precisely the wrong people.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42856291","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}
Henry H. Hansen, E. Bergman, I. Cowx, L. Lind, V. Pauna, Kathryn Willis
Non-technical summary Rivers are crucial to the water cycle, linking the landscape to the sea. Human activities, including effluent discharge, water use and fisheries, have transformed the resilience of many rivers around the globe. Sustainable development goal (SDG) 14 prioritizes addressing many of the same issues in marine ecosystems. This review illustrates how rivers contribute directly and indirectly to SDG 14 outcomes, and also provides ways to potentially address them through a river to sea view on policy, management and research. Technical summary The United Nations initiated the SDGs to produce ‘a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future’. Established in 2015, progress of SDGs directed at the aquatic environment is slow despite an encroaching 2030 deadline. The modification of flow regimes combined with other anthropogenic pressures underpin ecological impacts across aquatic ecosystems. Current SDG 14 targets (life below water) do not incorporate the interrelationships of rivers and marine systems systematically, nor do they provide recommendations on how to improve existing management and policy in a comprehensive manner. Therefore, this review aims to illustrate the linkages between rivers and marine ecosystems concerning the SDG 14 targets and to illustrate land to sea-based strategies to reach sustainability goals. We provide an applied case study to show how opportunities can be explored. We review three major areas where mutual opportunities are present: (1) rivers contribute to marine and estuary ecosystem resilience (targets 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.5); (2) resilient rivers are part of the global fisheries sustainability concerns (targets 14.4, 14.6, 14.7, 14.B) and (3) enhancing marine policy and research from a river and environmental flows perspective (targets 14.A, 14.C). Social media summary Restoring resilience to rivers and their environmental flows helps fulfil SDG 14.
{"title":"Resilient rivers and connected marine systems: a review of mutual sustainability opportunities","authors":"Henry H. Hansen, E. Bergman, I. Cowx, L. Lind, V. Pauna, Kathryn Willis","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.19","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Rivers are crucial to the water cycle, linking the landscape to the sea. Human activities, including effluent discharge, water use and fisheries, have transformed the resilience of many rivers around the globe. Sustainable development goal (SDG) 14 prioritizes addressing many of the same issues in marine ecosystems. This review illustrates how rivers contribute directly and indirectly to SDG 14 outcomes, and also provides ways to potentially address them through a river to sea view on policy, management and research. Technical summary The United Nations initiated the SDGs to produce ‘a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future’. Established in 2015, progress of SDGs directed at the aquatic environment is slow despite an encroaching 2030 deadline. The modification of flow regimes combined with other anthropogenic pressures underpin ecological impacts across aquatic ecosystems. Current SDG 14 targets (life below water) do not incorporate the interrelationships of rivers and marine systems systematically, nor do they provide recommendations on how to improve existing management and policy in a comprehensive manner. Therefore, this review aims to illustrate the linkages between rivers and marine ecosystems concerning the SDG 14 targets and to illustrate land to sea-based strategies to reach sustainability goals. We provide an applied case study to show how opportunities can be explored. We review three major areas where mutual opportunities are present: (1) rivers contribute to marine and estuary ecosystem resilience (targets 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.5); (2) resilient rivers are part of the global fisheries sustainability concerns (targets 14.4, 14.6, 14.7, 14.B) and (3) enhancing marine policy and research from a river and environmental flows perspective (targets 14.A, 14.C). Social media summary Restoring resilience to rivers and their environmental flows helps fulfil SDG 14.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44387652","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}
Maria A. Martin, E. A. Boakye, E. Boyd, Wendy Broadgate, M. Bustamante, J. Canadell, Edward R. Carr, E. Chu, H. Cleugh, Szilvia Csevár, Marwa Daoudy, Ariane de Bremond, M. Dhimal, K. Ebi, Clea M. Edwards, S. Fuss, M. Girardin, B. Glavovic, S. Hebden, M. Hirota, H. Hsu, S. Huq, K. Ingold, O. Johannessen, Yasuko Kameyama, Nilushi Kumarasinghe, G. Langendijk, T. Lissner, S. Lwasa, C. Machalaba, Aaron Maltais, Manu V. Mathai, C. Mbow, K. McNamara, A. Mukherji, V. Murray, J. Mysiak, C. Okereke, D. Ospina, F. Otto, A. Prakash, J. Pulhin, E. Raju, A. Redman, K. K. Rigaud, J. Rockström, J. Roy, E. Schipper, P. Schlosser, K. Schulz, K. Schumacher, Luana Schwarz, M. Scown, Barbora Šedová, T. Siddiqui, C. Singh, G. B. Sioen, D. Stammer, N. Steinert, Sunhee Suk, Rowan Sutton, L. Thalheimer, M. V. van Aalst, Kees van der Geest, Z. Zhao
Non-technical summary We summarize what we assess as the past year's most important findings within climate change research: limits to adaptation, vulnerability hotspots, new threats coming from the climate–health nexus, climate (im)mobility and security, sustainable practices for land use and finance, losses and damages, inclusive societal climate decisions and ways to overcome structural barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C. Technical summary We synthesize 10 topics within climate research where there have been significant advances or emerging scientific consensus since January 2021. The selection of these insights was based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings concern: (1) new aspects of soft and hard limits to adaptation; (2) the emergence of regional vulnerability hotspots from climate impacts and human vulnerability; (3) new threats on the climate–health horizon – some involving plants and animals; (4) climate (im)mobility and the need for anticipatory action; (5) security and climate; (6) sustainable land management as a prerequisite to land-based solutions; (7) sustainable finance practices in the private sector and the need for political guidance; (8) the urgent planetary imperative for addressing losses and damages; (9) inclusive societal choices for climate-resilient development and (10) how to overcome barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C. Social media summary Science has evidence on barriers to mitigation and how to overcome them to avoid limits to adaptation across multiple fields.
{"title":"Ten new insights in climate science 2022","authors":"Maria A. Martin, E. A. Boakye, E. Boyd, Wendy Broadgate, M. Bustamante, J. Canadell, Edward R. Carr, E. Chu, H. Cleugh, Szilvia Csevár, Marwa Daoudy, Ariane de Bremond, M. Dhimal, K. Ebi, Clea M. Edwards, S. Fuss, M. Girardin, B. Glavovic, S. Hebden, M. Hirota, H. Hsu, S. Huq, K. Ingold, O. Johannessen, Yasuko Kameyama, Nilushi Kumarasinghe, G. Langendijk, T. Lissner, S. Lwasa, C. Machalaba, Aaron Maltais, Manu V. Mathai, C. Mbow, K. McNamara, A. Mukherji, V. Murray, J. Mysiak, C. Okereke, D. Ospina, F. Otto, A. Prakash, J. Pulhin, E. Raju, A. Redman, K. K. Rigaud, J. Rockström, J. Roy, E. Schipper, P. Schlosser, K. Schulz, K. Schumacher, Luana Schwarz, M. Scown, Barbora Šedová, T. Siddiqui, C. Singh, G. B. Sioen, D. Stammer, N. Steinert, Sunhee Suk, Rowan Sutton, L. Thalheimer, M. V. van Aalst, Kees van der Geest, Z. Zhao","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.17","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary We summarize what we assess as the past year's most important findings within climate change research: limits to adaptation, vulnerability hotspots, new threats coming from the climate–health nexus, climate (im)mobility and security, sustainable practices for land use and finance, losses and damages, inclusive societal climate decisions and ways to overcome structural barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C. Technical summary We synthesize 10 topics within climate research where there have been significant advances or emerging scientific consensus since January 2021. The selection of these insights was based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings concern: (1) new aspects of soft and hard limits to adaptation; (2) the emergence of regional vulnerability hotspots from climate impacts and human vulnerability; (3) new threats on the climate–health horizon – some involving plants and animals; (4) climate (im)mobility and the need for anticipatory action; (5) security and climate; (6) sustainable land management as a prerequisite to land-based solutions; (7) sustainable finance practices in the private sector and the need for political guidance; (8) the urgent planetary imperative for addressing losses and damages; (9) inclusive societal choices for climate-resilient development and (10) how to overcome barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C. Social media summary Science has evidence on barriers to mitigation and how to overcome them to avoid limits to adaptation across multiple fields.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43584831","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}
Non-technical summary Humans have the tendency to damage the natural environment in many ways. Deforestation and conversion of forests for residential, industrial development, and expansion of agricultural crops, as well as the burning of fossil fuels, are some activities that disrupt natural ecosystems and wildlife and contribute to climate change. As a result, the life cycles of pathogens and intermediate hosts (insects, rodents, mammals) as well as biodiversity are affected. Through these activities, humans meet wild animals that transmit pathogens, resulting in their infection by zoonoses and causing epidemics–pandemics, the effects of which have as their final recipient himself and his activities. Technical summary This article aims to highlight the two-way relationship between those human activities and the occurrence of epidemics–pandemics. We will try to elaborate this two-way relationship, through the overview of the current pandemic (origin of SARS-CoV-2, modes of transmission, clinical picture of the disease of COVID-19, influence of weather and air pollution on prevalence and mortality, pandemic effects, and treatments). They are used as primary sources, scientific articles, literature, websites, and databases (Supplementary appendix) to analyze factors involved in the occurrence and transmission of zoonotic diseases in humans (Ebola, influenza, Lyme disease, dengue fever, cholera, AIDS/HIV, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV). The present paper concluded that humanity today faces two major challenges: controlling the COVID-19 pandemic and minimizing the risk of a new global health crisis occurring in the future. The first can be achieved through equitable access to vaccines and treatments for all people. The second needs the global community to make a great change and start protecting the natural environment and its ecosystems through the adoption of prevention policies. Summary of social media Two-way relationship between human activities and epidemics highlighted, through review of the COVID-19 pandemic.
{"title":"Human activities and zoonotic epidemics: a two-way relationship. The case of the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"D. Tounta, P. Nastos, C. Tesseromatis","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.18","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Humans have the tendency to damage the natural environment in many ways. Deforestation and conversion of forests for residential, industrial development, and expansion of agricultural crops, as well as the burning of fossil fuels, are some activities that disrupt natural ecosystems and wildlife and contribute to climate change. As a result, the life cycles of pathogens and intermediate hosts (insects, rodents, mammals) as well as biodiversity are affected. Through these activities, humans meet wild animals that transmit pathogens, resulting in their infection by zoonoses and causing epidemics–pandemics, the effects of which have as their final recipient himself and his activities. Technical summary This article aims to highlight the two-way relationship between those human activities and the occurrence of epidemics–pandemics. We will try to elaborate this two-way relationship, through the overview of the current pandemic (origin of SARS-CoV-2, modes of transmission, clinical picture of the disease of COVID-19, influence of weather and air pollution on prevalence and mortality, pandemic effects, and treatments). They are used as primary sources, scientific articles, literature, websites, and databases (Supplementary appendix) to analyze factors involved in the occurrence and transmission of zoonotic diseases in humans (Ebola, influenza, Lyme disease, dengue fever, cholera, AIDS/HIV, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV). The present paper concluded that humanity today faces two major challenges: controlling the COVID-19 pandemic and minimizing the risk of a new global health crisis occurring in the future. The first can be achieved through equitable access to vaccines and treatments for all people. The second needs the global community to make a great change and start protecting the natural environment and its ecosystems through the adoption of prevention policies. Summary of social media Two-way relationship between human activities and epidemics highlighted, through review of the COVID-19 pandemic.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44896838","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}
Non-technical summary Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are important scientific tools for advising policymakers and the public on climate mitigation. Recent results of modeling exercises relied upon large amounts of techniques that can capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, undoing current and past emissions. I argue that the reliance on such techniques unduly shifts risk to future generations and away from current high emitting countries. From an ethical point of view, this is problematic. IAM studies need to be more explicit about the value positions that evidence of mitigation pathways depends upon and should represent a wider array of plausible value positions. Technical summary This paper analyzes the nonepistemic value judgments involved in modeling Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques. The comparably high uncertainty of these techniques gives rise to epistemic risk when large-scale CDR is relied upon in most scenario evidence. Technological assumptions on CDR are thus entangled with nonepistemic value judgments. In particular, the reliance on large-scale CDR implies shifting risk to future generations and thereby gives a one-sided answer to questions of intergenerational justice. This bias in integrated assessment modeling is problematic given the policy-advising role of integrated modeling. Modeling climate mitigation should focus on transforming these implicit value positions into explicit scenario parameters and should aim to provide scenario evidence on the complete array of value-laden mitigation strategies. Social media summary The ethics of mitigation pathways, for example in relation to CDR, must be made transparent and plural.
{"title":"On economic modeling of carbon dioxide removal: values, bias, and norms for good policy-advising modeling","authors":"Simon Hollnaicher","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.16","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are important scientific tools for advising policymakers and the public on climate mitigation. Recent results of modeling exercises relied upon large amounts of techniques that can capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, undoing current and past emissions. I argue that the reliance on such techniques unduly shifts risk to future generations and away from current high emitting countries. From an ethical point of view, this is problematic. IAM studies need to be more explicit about the value positions that evidence of mitigation pathways depends upon and should represent a wider array of plausible value positions. Technical summary This paper analyzes the nonepistemic value judgments involved in modeling Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques. The comparably high uncertainty of these techniques gives rise to epistemic risk when large-scale CDR is relied upon in most scenario evidence. Technological assumptions on CDR are thus entangled with nonepistemic value judgments. In particular, the reliance on large-scale CDR implies shifting risk to future generations and thereby gives a one-sided answer to questions of intergenerational justice. This bias in integrated assessment modeling is problematic given the policy-advising role of integrated modeling. Modeling climate mitigation should focus on transforming these implicit value positions into explicit scenario parameters and should aim to provide scenario evidence on the complete array of value-laden mitigation strategies. Social media summary The ethics of mitigation pathways, for example in relation to CDR, must be made transparent and plural.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45125430","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}
Rebecca Green, Elizabeth Gill, Cris D. Hein, L. Couturier, Miguel Mascarenhas, R. May, D. Newell, B. Rumes
Non-technical summary A substantial increase in wind energy deployment worldwide is required to help achieve international targets for decreasing global carbon emissions and limiting the impacts of climate change. In response to global concerns regarding the environmental effects of wind energy, the International Energy Agency Wind Technical Collaborative Program initiated Task 34 – Working Together to Resolve Environmental Effects of Wind Energy or WREN. As part of WREN, this study performed an international assessment with the global wind energy and environmental community to determine priority environmental issues over the next 5‒10 years and help support collaborative interactions among researchers, developers, regulators, and stakeholders. Technical summary A systematic assessment was performed using feedback from the international community to identify priority environmental issues for land-based and offshore wind energy development. Given the global nature of wind energy development, feedback was of interest from all countries where such development is underway or planned to help meet United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change targets. The assessment prioritized environmental issues over the next 5–10 years associated with wind energy development and received a total of 294 responses from 28 countries. For land-based wind, the highest-ranked issues included turbine collision risk for volant species (birds and bats), cumulative effects on species and ecosystems, and indirect effects such as avoidance and displacement. For offshore wind, the highest-ranked issues included cumulative effects, turbine collision risk, underwater noise (e.g. marine mammals and fish), and displacement. Emerging considerations for these priorities include potential application to future technologies (e.g. larger turbines and floating turbines), new stressors and species in frontier regions, and cumulative effects for multiple projects at a regional scale. For both land-based and offshore wind, effectiveness of minimization measures (e.g. detection and deterrence technologies) and costs for monitoring, minimization, and mitigation were identified as overarching challenges. Social media summary Turbine collisions and cumulative effects among the international environmental priorities for wind energy development.
{"title":"International assessment of priority environmental issues for land-based and offshore wind energy development","authors":"Rebecca Green, Elizabeth Gill, Cris D. Hein, L. Couturier, Miguel Mascarenhas, R. May, D. Newell, B. Rumes","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.14","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary A substantial increase in wind energy deployment worldwide is required to help achieve international targets for decreasing global carbon emissions and limiting the impacts of climate change. In response to global concerns regarding the environmental effects of wind energy, the International Energy Agency Wind Technical Collaborative Program initiated Task 34 – Working Together to Resolve Environmental Effects of Wind Energy or WREN. As part of WREN, this study performed an international assessment with the global wind energy and environmental community to determine priority environmental issues over the next 5‒10 years and help support collaborative interactions among researchers, developers, regulators, and stakeholders. Technical summary A systematic assessment was performed using feedback from the international community to identify priority environmental issues for land-based and offshore wind energy development. Given the global nature of wind energy development, feedback was of interest from all countries where such development is underway or planned to help meet United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change targets. The assessment prioritized environmental issues over the next 5–10 years associated with wind energy development and received a total of 294 responses from 28 countries. For land-based wind, the highest-ranked issues included turbine collision risk for volant species (birds and bats), cumulative effects on species and ecosystems, and indirect effects such as avoidance and displacement. For offshore wind, the highest-ranked issues included cumulative effects, turbine collision risk, underwater noise (e.g. marine mammals and fish), and displacement. Emerging considerations for these priorities include potential application to future technologies (e.g. larger turbines and floating turbines), new stressors and species in frontier regions, and cumulative effects for multiple projects at a regional scale. For both land-based and offshore wind, effectiveness of minimization measures (e.g. detection and deterrence technologies) and costs for monitoring, minimization, and mitigation were identified as overarching challenges. Social media summary Turbine collisions and cumulative effects among the international environmental priorities for wind energy development.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42697256","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：