Search

• COVID-19 pandemic aside, climate change is the ultimate challenge of our time • There is lack of political thrust to facilitate appropriate climate action • Climate change-induced mortality and morbidity are expected to rise globally • Little time is left to develop and implement mitigation and adaptation strategies COVID-19 pandemic aside, climate change is the ultimate challenge of our time. However, to date, there has been insufficient political thrust to make that much-needed climate action a reality. Infectious diseases represent only one facet of the threats arising from climate change. Direct impacts from climate change include the more frequent occurrence and increased magnitude of extreme weather events, as well as changing temperatures and precipitation patterns. For climate-sensitive infectious diseases, these changes implicate a shift in geographical and temporal distribution, seasonality, and transmission intensity. Susceptibility to the deleterious effects of climate change is a net result of the interplay of not only environmental factors, but also human, societal, and economic factors, with social inequalities being a major determinant of vulnerability. The global South is already disproportionately affected by the climate crisis. The financial capacity to pursue adaptation options is also limited and unevenly distributed. Climate change-induced mortality and morbidity from both infectious and non-infectious diseases, among other adverse scenarios, are expected to rise globally in the future. The coming decade will be crucial for using all remaining opportunities to develop and implement adequate mitigation and adaptation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of global environmental change make extensive use of scenarios to explore how the future can evolve under a consistent set of assumptions. The recently developed Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) create a framework for the study of climate-related scenario outcomes. Their five narratives span a wide range of worlds that vary in their challenges for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Here we provide background on the quantification that has been selected to serve as the reference, or ‘marker’, implementation for SSP2. The SSP2 narrative describes a middle-of-the-road development in the mitigation and adaptation challenges space. We explain how the narrative has been translated into quantitative assumptions in the IIASA Integrated Assessment Modelling Framework . We show that our SSP2 marker implementation occupies a central position for key metrics along the mitigation and adaptation challenge dimensions. For many dimensions the SSP2 marker implementation also reflects an extension of the historical experience, particularly in terms of carbon and energy intensity improvements in its baseline. This leads to a steady emissions increase over the 21st century, with projected end-of-century warming nearing 4 °C relative to preindustrial levels. On the other hand, SSP2 also shows that global-mean temperature increase can be limited to below 2 °C, pending stringent climate policies throughout the world. The added value of the SSP2 marker implementation for the wider scientific community is that it can serve as a starting point to further explore integrated solutions for achieving multiple societal objectives in light of the climate adaptation and mitigation challenges that society could face over the 21st century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy makers and citizens must choose from among a growing variety of strategic options as they try to cope optimally with climate change. As a means of more accurately predicting different types of climate change engagement, we empirically distinguish individuals’ felt responsibility for mitigation (FRm) from felt responsibility for adaptation (FRa), and assess support for different climate action strategies (mitigation and adaptation). We surveyed two U.S. samples two months apart, and the replication study confirmed Study 1′s findings of differing predictive powers for FRm vs. FRa. Each type of felt responsibility, controlling for the other, served as a mediator between belief in global warming (as well as belief in anthropogenic cause of climate change) and its corresponding climate action strategy (mitigation vs. adaptation). FRa predicted adaptation measures but not mitigation measures, while FRm predicted mitigation measures more strongly than it predicted adaptation but did predict both action strategies. We also found important individual differences: people’s disposition toward behaving proactively correlated positively with all types of climate engagement, and political orientation (liberal/conservative ideology) interacted with climate action strategy (mitigation vs. adaptation) in predicting all engagement variables. Comparing levels of support across the political spectrum, the mitigation measures were highly polarizing, while the adaptation measures were less divisive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Countries are implementing CO2 emission reduction targets in order to meet a globally agreed global warming limit of +2°C. However, it was hypothesised that these national reduction targets are not translated to regional or state level planning, and are not considered through Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in order to meet emission reduction obligations falling on the transport, energy, housing, agriculture, and forestry sectors. SEAs of land use plans in the German state of Saxony, and the English region of the East of England were examined for their consideration of climate change impacts based on a set of criteria drawn from the literature. It was found that SEAs in both cases failed to consider climate change impacts at scales larger than the boundary of the spatial plan, and that CO2 reduction targets were not considered. This suggests a need for more clarity in the legal obligations for climate change consideration within the text of the SEA Directive, a requirement for monitoring of carbon emissions, a need for methodological guidance to devolve global climate change targets down to regional and local levels, and a need for guidance on properly implementing climate change protection in SEA. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• A new definition of 'climate change transformation' and an accompanying typology is presented. • Climate change transformation is defined to include: 1) the explicit coordination of adaptation and mitigation actions. • 2) a new regime of 1.5 degrees Celsius (only) of warming by 2100. • 3) sufficient actions to be well adapted to this new regime. • The definition and typology aim to guide climate change decision making in the built environment. Climate change presents a threat to the sustainability of cities and their societies, and must be adequately addressed. Urban environments (cities) are responsible for the creation of a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions which are the source of climate change. Cities have been increasingly the focus of action to address climate change, yet emissions are not significantly reducing. Additionally, there a lack of integration between adaptation and mitigation. This prevents responses adequate to limit global warming to 1.5OC, and to be well adapted to anticipated changes. This paper critically analyses existing definitions and typologies of climate change actions. A definition of 'climate change transformation' is proposed which includes the integration of adaptation and mitigation goals to enable a new regime in which global warming is limited to 1.5OC. A new three-part typology: 'coping, malaction and transformation,' is presented for categorising climate change actions by the extent to which they integrate adaptation and mitigation, and define a new regime. The typology is accompanied by illustrations to demonstrate the relationship between adaptation and mitigation. The definition, typology and illustration serve to guide effective climate change decision making, and provides principles to guide application in urban environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]