Search

Increasing temperatures will make space cooling a necessity for maintain comfort and protecting human health, and rising income levels will allow more people to purchase and run air conditioners. Here we show that, in Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Mexico income and humidity-adjusted temperature are common determinants for adopting air-conditioning, but their relative contribution varies in relation to household characteristics. Adoption rates are higher among households living in higher quality dwellings in urban areas, and among those with higher levels of education. Air-conditioning is unevenly distributed across income levels, making evident the existence of a disparity in access to cooling devices. Although the adoption of air-conditioning could increase between twofold and sixteen-fold by 2040, from 64 to 100 million families with access to electricity will not be able to adequately satisfy their demand for thermal comfort. The need to sustain electricity expenditure in response to higher temperatures can also create unequal opportunities to adapt. Adaptation to heat stress through the use of air conditioners has received increasing attention. Here the authors show that income and humidity adjusted temperature are common determinants for adopting air conditioning, but their relative contribution varies in relation to household characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over 100 countries have set or are considering net-zero emissions or neutrality targets. However, most of the information on emissions neutrality (such as timing) is provided for the global level. Here, we look at national-level neutrality-years based on globally cost-effective 1.5 °C and 2 °C scenarios from integrated assessment models. These results indicate that domestic net zero greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions in Brazil and the USA are reached a decade earlier than the global average, and in India and Indonesia later than global average. These results depend on choices like the accounting of land-use emissions. The results also show that carbon storage and afforestation capacity, income, share of non-CO2 emissions, and transport sector emissions affect the variance in projected phase-out years across countries. We further compare these results to an alternative approach, using equity-based rules to establish target years. These results can inform policymakers on net-zero targets. Over 100 countries have set or are considering net-zero emissions targets. Here, the authors show that a country's potential for negative emissions and methodological issues affect when countries can reach net-zero, calling for clear internationally agreed definitions and accounting methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many nations use ecological compensation policies to address negative impacts of development projects and achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, failures are widely reported. We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study. Two factors limit their potential success: the land available for compensation (existing vegetation to protect or cleared land to restore), and expected counterfactual biodiversity losses (unregulated vegetation clearing). Compensation also fails to slow regional biodiversity declines because policies regulate only a subset of sectors, and expanding policy scope requires more land than is available for compensation activities. Avoidance of impacts remains essential in achieving NNL goals, particularly once opportunities for compensation are exhausted. Countries are adopting ecological compensation policies aimed at achieving no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Here, Sonter and colleagues apply spatial simulation models to case studies in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and Mozambique to show that compensation alone is not sufficient to preserve biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]