Search

Environmental catastrophes, including the increased severity and frequency of climate extremes, can act as "windows of opportunities" that challenge citizens' mental models and motivate them to engage in reflective processes, challenging their pre-conceived ideas. Less well understood is whether experiencing changing weather conditions, common in mid-latitudes, can have a similar effect and increase the citizens' concerns about climate change and their willingness to accept more stringent climate policies. In this paper, we investigate the effects of changing seasonal temperature on the perceived seriousness of climate change and willingness to mitigate climate change. We use data from four yearly waves of a spatially explicit representative population survey in Germany and weather records from the postal code areas in which they live. To our knowledge, this study is the first analysis to link individual perceptions towards climate change and different mitigation options with seasonal temperature changes at specific locations in Europe. The analyzed perceptions were strongly influenced by socio-demographic characteristics and broader societal changes, as well as individual experiences of seasonal temperatures. The results show that experienced seasonal temperature change influences personal climate change concerns as well as the willingness to mitigate climate change, although with a weaker effect. The results indicate that it is the absolute temperature variation experienced that is important, rather than whether it is getting colder or warmer than usual. Considering the influences identified in this study can offer a window of opportunity for more stringent and targeted climate change policy. • Seasonal temperature changes influence climate change perception. • Effects can offer a window of opportunity for more stringent climate change policy. • Governmental mitigation policy solutions less supported than self-determined options. • Perceptions influenced by broader societal changes as well as individual experiences. • Need for targeted climate change communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many studies have analysed the environmental impact of vegan, vegetarian, or reduced meat diets. To date, literature has not evaluated how diet shifts affect environmental impacts by utilising portfolios which reflect personal nutrition preferences. Further, changing diets could alter the available land for non-food uses. This paper defines novel diet portfolios to outline alternative diet transitions and choices within the population and finds their effect on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primary energy use, and land use in Germany. The aim of this study is to capture how these diet shifts affect land availability and increase the options for land-based climate change mitigation strategies. To do so, a contextualisation is made to compare the use of freed-up land for afforestation or biomethane production (with and without carbon capture and storage). The investigated diet portfolios lead to a reduction of the investigated impacts (GHG emissions: 7–67%; energy use: 5–46%; land use: 6–64%). Additionally, afforestation of freed-up land from each diet portfolio leads to further emission removals of 4–37%. In comparison, using the land to produce energy crops for biomethane production could lead to 2–23% further CO2-eq emission reductions when replacing fossil methane. If biomethane production is paired with carbon capture and storage, emission abatement is increased to 3–34%. This research indicates various short-term pathways to reduce GHG emissions with portfolio diet shifts. Utilising freed-up land for climate change mitigation strategies could prove essential to meet climate targets, but trade-offs with, e.g. biodiversity and ecosystem services exist and should be considered. • Diet portfolios are used to represent realistic population diets. • Diet portfolios include a mixture of 12 different diets. • GHG emissions decrease by 67% if the population adopts a Vegan diet. • Afforestation removes almost double the emissions compared to biomethane. • BECCS has similar GHG abatement to afforestation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change is supposed to exacerbate conflicts arising from resource scarcity and contrasting objectives. Some European authors highlighted already the need to look at conflicting interests when elaborating and applying adaptation and mitigation strategies. This study analysed the level of consideration of these emerging topics arising through increased competition of resources, contrasting interests, climate change adaptation as well as mitigation measures for Austria and Southern Germany in detail. Furthermore, it surveyed the application of possible approaches for conflict prevention and mitigation in an international perspective and additionally examined the particular role of SEA as one of the instruments to cope with conflicts related to climate change. The results express the strong need to look at emerging conflicts in cross-sectoral and sectoral adaptation early enough and a strategic perspective. Based on the content analysis of the Austrian and German adaptation and mitigation documents, expert interviews as well as the international literature review, a rather low consideration of these emerging topics as well as approaches to cope with them became evident. In response to these deficiencies, the paper introduces a first framework to identify and tackle emerging and exacerbated conflicts related to climate change. This novel framework is internationally applicable. In the final step of the framework approaches to prevent and minimize conflicts are the key topic. Among these approaches, SEA could take a leading role in case mandatory planning instruments cover the topics related to potential or existing exacerbated fields of conflicts. Overall a mix of formal and informal instruments and a more cross-sectoral perspective seems necessary. To this aim, the paper introduces four main guiding principles to consider and minimize up-coming conflicting topics. • Consideration of cc related conflicts is very diverse in adaptation documents. • A more strategic view of emerging conflicts is of particular importance. • This paper presents a novel framework to identify and tackle conflicts. • SEA can partly address these conflicting topics depending on its role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Invoking health benefits to promote climate-friendly household behavior has three unique advantages: (i) health co-benefits accrue directly to the acting individual, they are "private goods" rather than public ones; (ii) the evidence base for, and magnitude of health co-benefits is well-established; and (iii) the idea of a healthy life-style is well-engrained in public discourse, much more so than that of a climate-friendly life-style. In previous research, assessing the influence of information on health effects on people's motivation to adopt mitigation actions, health co-benefits for the individual were typically confounded with collective health co-benefits, for example from pollution reduction. The present research aims to overcome this limitation by providing information on individual health co-benefits that are unconditional on the actions of others (direct health co-benefits). We report effects of this kind of health information on stated willingness to adopt mitigation actions as well as on simulation-based carbon emission reductions in a pre-registered experimental setting among 308 households in 4 mid-size case-study cities in 4 European high-income countries: France, Germany, Norway and Sweden. For each mitigation action from the sectors food, housing, and mobility, half of the sample received the amount of CO 2 equivalents (CO 2 -eq) saved and the financial costs or savings the respective action generated. The other half additionally received information on direct health co-benefits, where applicable. For households receiving information on direct health co-benefits, we find a higher mean willingness to adopt food and housing actions, and a greater proportion very willing to adopt one or more mitigation actions (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.1, 3.12); and a greater simulated reduction in overall carbon footprint: difference in percent reduction -2.70%, (95% CI -5.34, -0.04) overall and -4.45%, (95% CI -8.26, -0.64) for food. Our study is the first to show that providing information on strictly unconditional, individual health co-benefits can motivate households in high-income countries to adopt mitigation actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]