What's the best way to tackle climate change? An 'evidence bank' could help scientists find answers

Helen Pearson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01683-4

IF: 64.8

2024-06-07

Nature

Abstract:Sythensizing research on which policies are most effective is a key priority in climate science, advocates say. Sythensizing research on which policies are most effective is a key priority in climate science, advocates say.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Scientists are building a giant 'evidence banks' to create policies that actually work

Helen Pearson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03100-2

IF: 64.8

2024-09-22

Nature

Abstract:Funders launch projects with US 70-million to develop tools that make rapid syntheses of the world's science.

multidisciplinary sciences
Ten New Insights in Climate Science 2024

Roberto Schaeffer,Lisa Schipper,Daniel Ospina,Paula Mirazo,Ane Alencar,Mehrnaz Anvari,Paulo Artaxo,Mehmet Efe Biresselioglu,Tanja Blome,Melanie Boeckmann,Ebba Brink,Wendy Broadgate,Mercedes Bustamante,Wenju Cai,Josep G. Canadell,r.cardinaleucl.ac.uk,Maria Paz Chidichimo,Peter Ditlevsen,Ursula Eicker,Sarah Feron,Mahelet G Fikru,Sabine Fuss,Amadou T. Gaye,Örjan Gustafsson,Niklas Harring,Cheng He,Sophie Hebden,Adrian Heilemann,Marina Hirota,Nandakumar Janardhanan,Sirkku Juhola,Tae Yong Jung,Jiang Kejun,Şiir Kılkış,Nilushi Kumarasinghe,David Lapola,June-Yi Lee,Carolina Levis,Adelaide Lusambili,Bram Maasakkers,Claire MacIntosh,Jemilah Mahmood,Justin S. Mankin,Pía Marchegiani,Maria Martin,Aditi Mukherji,Tischa A. Muñoz-Erickson,Zeenat Niazi,Joseph Nyangon,Santosh Pandipati,Amarasinghage T.D. Perera,Geeta Persad,Åsa Persson,Aaron Redman,Ilona Riipinen,Johan Rockström,Sarah Roffe,Joyashree Roy,Boris Sakschewski,Bjørn H. Samset,Peter Schlosser,Ayyoob Sharifi,Wan-Yu Shih,Giles B. Sioen,Youba Sokona,Detlef Stammer,Sunhee Suk,Djiby Thiam,Vikki Thompson,Erin Tullos,René M. van Westen,Ana Maria Vargas Falla,Daniel Vecellio,John Worden,Henry C. Wu,Chi Xu,Yang,Mariam Zachariah,Zhen Zhang,Gina Ziervogel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/2ts8p

2024-01-01

Abstract:Climate change research is broad, diverse and constantly growing. Cross- and interdisciplinary understanding is essential for generating robust science advice for policy. However, it is challenging to prioritise and navigate the ever-expanding peer-reviewed literature. To address this, we gathered input from experts across various research fields through an online questionnaire and prioritised a set of 10 key research advances with high policy relevance. This year, we focus on: (1) Declining aerosol emissions, (2) soaring methane emissions, (3) concerning ocean dynamics, (4) diversity and resilience of Amazon forests, (5) expanding risk of “uninhabitability”, (6) climate impacts to maternal and reproductive health, (7) climate-resilient development for cities, (8) vulnerability of critical infrastructure, (9) governance of the energy transition minerals value chain, and (10) public acceptance of climate policies. This science synthesis and science communication effort is also the basis for a policy report which aims to elevate climate science every year ahead of the UN Climate Summit.
Ten new insights in climate science 2023

Mercedes Bustamante,Joyashree Roy,Daniel Ospina,Ploy Achakulwisut,Anubha Aggarwal,Ana Bastos,Wendy Broadgate,Josep G. Canadell,Edward R. Carr,Deliang Chen,Helen A. Cleugh,Kristie L. Ebi,Clea Edwards,Carol Farbotko,Marcos Fernandez-Martinez,Thomas L. Froelicher,Sabine Fuss,Oliver Geden,Nicolas Gruber,Luke J. Harrington,Judith Hauck,Zeke Hausfather,Sophie Hebden,Aniek Hebinck,Saleemul Huq,Matthias Huss,M. Laurice P. Jamero,Sirkku Juhola,Nilushi Kumarasinghe,Shuaib Lwasa,Bishawjit Mallick,Maria Martin,Steven Mcgreevy,Paula Mirazo,Aditi Mukherji,Greg Muttitt,Gregory F. Nemet,David Obura,Chukwumerije Okereke,Tom Oliver,Ben Orlove,Nadia S. Ouedraogo,Prabir K. Patra,Mark Pelling,Laura M. Pereira,Asa Persson,Julia Pongratz,Anjal Prakash,Anja Rammig,Colin Raymond,Aaron Redman,Cristobal Reveco,Johan Rockstroem,Regina Rodrigues,David R. Rounce,E. Lisa F. Schipper,Peter Schlosser,Odirilwe Selomane,Gregor Semieniuk,Yunne-Jai Shin,Tasneem A. Siddiqui,Vartika Singh,Giles B. Sioen,Youba Sokona,Detlef Stammer,Norman J. Steinert,Sunhee Suk,Rowan Sutton,Lisa Thalheimer,Vikki Thompson,Gregory Trencher,Kees van der Geest,Saskia E. Werners,Thea Wuebbelmann,Nico Wunderling,Jiabo Yin,Kirsten Zickfeld,Jakob Zscheischler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.25

2023-01-01

Global Sustainability

Abstract:Non-technical summary We identify a set of essential recent advances in climate change research with high policy relevance, across natural and social sciences: (1) looming inevitability and implications of overshooting the 1.5 degrees C warming limit, (2) urgent need for a rapid and managed fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges for scaling carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding the future contribution of natural carbon sinks, (5) intertwinedness of the crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) compound events, (7) mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility in the face of climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems.Technical summary The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports provides the scientific foundation for international climate negotiations and constitutes an unmatched resource for researchers. However, the assessment cycles take multiple years. As a contribution to cross- and interdisciplinary understanding of climate change across diverse research communities, we have streamlined an annual process to identify and synthesize significant research advances. We collected input from experts on various fields using an online questionnaire and prioritized a set of 10 key research insights with high policy relevance. This year, we focus on: (1) the looming overshoot of the 1.5 degrees C warming limit, (2) the urgency of fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges to scale-up carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding future natural carbon sinks, (5) the need for joint governance of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) advances in understanding compound events, (7) accelerated mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility amidst climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems. We present a succinct account of these insights, reflect on their policy implications, and offer an integrated set of policy-relevant messages. This science synthesis and science communication effort is also the basis for a policy report contributing to elevate climate science every year in time for the United Nations Climate Change Conference.Social media summary We highlight recent and policy-relevant advances in climate change research - with input from more than 200 experts.
Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges

Nathalie Seddon,Alexandre Chausson,Pam Berry,Cécile A. J. Girardin,Alison Smith,Beth Turner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120

2020-01-27

Abstract:There is growing awareness that ‘nature-based solutions' (NbS) can help to protect us from climate change impacts while slowing further warming, supporting biodiversity and securing ecosystem services. However, the potential of NbS to provide the intended benefits has not been rigorously assessed. There are concerns over their reliability and cost-effectiveness compared to engineered alternatives, and their resilience to climate change. Trade-offs can arise if climate mitigation policy encourages NbS with low biodiversity value, such as afforestation with non-native monocultures. This can result in maladaptation, especially in a rapidly changing world where biodiversity-based resilience and multi-functional landscapes are key. Here, we highlight the rise of NbS in climate policy—focusing on their potential for climate change adaptation as well as mitigation—and discuss barriers to their evidence-based implementation. We outline the major financial and governance challenges to implementing NbS at scale, highlighting avenues for further research. As climate policy turns increasingly towards greenhouse gas removal approaches such as afforestation, we stress the urgent need for natural and social scientists to engage with policy makers. They must ensure that NbS can achieve their potential to tackle both the climate and biodiversity crisis while also contributing to sustainable development. This will require systemic change in the way we conduct research and run our institutions. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions’.
Ten New Insights in Climate Science 2023/2024

Mercedes Bustamante,Joyashree Roy,Daniel Ospina,Ploy Achakulwisut,Anubha Aggarwal,Ana Bastos,Wendy Broadgate,Josep G. Canadell,Edward R. Carr,Deliang Chen,Helen Cleugh,Kristie L. Ebi,Clea Edwards,Carol Farbotko,Marcos Fernández‐Martínez,Thomas L. Frölicher,Sabine Fuss,Oliver Geden,Nicolas Gruber,Luke J. Harrington,Judith Hauck,Zeke Hausfather,Sophie Hebden,Aniek Hebinck,Saleemul Huq,Matthias Huss,Ma. Laurice Jamero,Sirkku Juhola,Nilushi Kumarasinghe,Shuaib Lwasa,Bishawjit Mallick,Maria A. Martin,Steven R. McGreevy,Paula Mirazo,Aditi Mukherji,Greg Muttitt,Gregory F. Nemet,David Obura,Chukwumerije Okereke,Tom H. Oliver,Ben Orlove,Nadia S. Ouédraogo,Prabir K. Patra,Mark Pelling,Laura Pereira,Åsa Persson,Julia Pongratz,Anjal Prakash,Anja Rammig,Colin Raymond,Aaron Redman,Cristobal Reveco,Johan Rockström,Regina R. Rodrigues,David R. Rounce,E. Lisa F. Schipper,Peter Schlösser,Odirilwe Selomane,Gregor Semieniuk,Yunne‐Jai Shin,Tasneem A. Siddiqui,Vartika Singh,Giles B. Sioen,Youba Sokona,Detlef Stammer,Norman Julius Steinert,Sunhee Suk,Rowan Sutton,Lisa Thalheimer,Vikki Thompson,Gregory Trencher,Kees van der Geest,S.E. Werners,Thea Wübbelmann,Nico Wunderling,Jiabo Yin,Kirsten Zickfeld,Jakob Zscheischler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.25

2023-01-01

Global Sustainability

Abstract:Non-technical summary We identify a set of essential recent advances in climate change research with high policy relevance, across natural and social sciences: (1) looming inevitability and implications of overshooting the 1.5°C warming limit, (2) urgent need for a rapid and managed fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges for scaling carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding the future contribution of natural carbon sinks, (5) intertwinedness of the crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) compound events, (7) mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility in the face of climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems. Technical summary The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports provides the scientific foundation for international climate negotiations and constitutes an unmatched resource for researchers. However, the assessment cycles take multiple years. As a contribution to cross- and interdisciplinary understanding of climate change across diverse research communities, we have streamlined an annual process to identify and synthesize significant research advances. We collected input from experts on various fields using an online questionnaire and prioritized a set of 10 key research insights with high policy relevance. This year, we focus on: (1) the looming overshoot of the 1.5°C warming limit, (2) the urgency of fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges to scale-up carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding future natural carbon sinks, (5) the need for joint governance of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) advances in understanding compound events, (7) accelerated mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility amidst climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems. We present a succinct account of these insights, reflect on their policy implications, and offer an integrated set of policy-relevant messages. This science synthesis and science communication effort is also the basis for a policy report contributing to elevate climate science every year in time for the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Social media summary We highlight recent and policy-relevant advances in climate change research – with input from more than 200 experts.
Evidence-informed climate policy: mobilising strategic research and pooling expertise for rapid evidence generation

Anita Wreford,Suzanne Peace,Mark Reed,Justyna Bandola-Gill,Ragne Low,Andrew Cross

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02483-w

2019-07-31

Climatic Change

Abstract:ClimateXChange (CXC) was established in 2011 as Scotland's Centre of Expertise on Climate Change. It aims to link research and policy, and to be a focal point the Scottish Government can call on for advice on climate change science, mitigation and adaptation actions, and analysis. Bringing together 15 Scottish institutions, CXC is an innovative organisation bridging the science policy gap. We outline CXC's formation and structure, and use CXC's experiences to date to highlight features that have been successful in facilitating knowledge exchange as well as on-going challenges. Based on our reflections of CXC, we demonstrate how boundary organisations can (i) meet near-term policy demand for evidence via small-scale, rapid response projects; and (ii) pool expertise from across the research community; whilst (iii) benefiting from longer-term, strategic programmes of research tackling complex, global challenges. We illustrate that while CXC has some unique characteristics, many of the lessons and experiences are applicable to other organisations seeking a greater connection between science and policy.

environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Designing an effective climate-policy mix: accounting for instrument synergy

J. van den Bergh,J. Castro,S. Drews,F. Exadaktylos,J. Foramitti,F. Klein,T. Konc,I. Savin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1907276

2021-03-30

Climate Policy

Abstract:We assess evidence from theoretical-modelling, empirical and experimental studies on how interactions between instruments of climate policy affect overall emissions reduction. Such interactions take the form of negative, zero or positive synergistic effects. The considered instruments comprise performance and technical standards, carbon pricing, adoption subsidies, innovation support, and information provision. Based on the findings, we formulate climate-policy packages that avoid negative and employ positive synergies, and compare their strengths and weaknesses on other criteria. We note that the international context of climate policy has been neglected in assessments of policy mixes, and argue that transparency and harmonization of national policies may be key to a politically feasible path to meet global emission targets. This suggests limiting the complexity of climate-policy packages.Key policy insights Combining technical standards or targets, such as renewable-energy quota, or adoption subsidies with a carbon market can produce negative synergy, up to the point of adding no emissions reduction beyond the cap. For maximum emissions reduction, renewable energy policy should be combined with carbon taxation and target expensive reduction options not triggered by the tax.Evidence regarding synergy of information provision with pricing is mixed, indicating a tendency for complementary roles (zero synergy). Positive synergy is documented only for cases where information provision improves effectiveness of price instruments, e.g. by stimulating social imitation of low-carbon choices.We conclude that the most promising packages are combining innovation support and information provision with either a carbon tax and adoption subsidy, or with a carbon market. We further argue that the latter could have stronger potential to harmonize international policy, which would allow to strengthen mitigation policy over time.

environmental studies,public administration
How to climate-proof crops: scientists say the secret's in the dirt

Alix Soliman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03480-5

IF: 64.8

2024-11-07

Nature

Abstract:Evidence is building that regenerative agriculture boosts soil health, which, in turn, could bolster food security. Evidence is building that regenerative agriculture boosts soil health, which, in turn, could bolster food security.

multidisciplinary sciences
Policies for climate finance: Status and research needs

Bjarne Steffen,Axel Michaelowa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000083

2022-10-04

PLOS Climate

Abstract:Reaching a greenhouse gas emissions pathway in line with the Paris Agreement commitments will require a fundamental transformation of global economies along with massive investment needs [1]. In the energy sector, for example, a 2°C pathway translates into an annual investment need of 2–4 trillion USD until 2050 [2]. At the same time, the severe impacts of climate change require investments for adaptation. Accordingly, inducing climate finance flows ranks highly on the climate policy agenda. A growing community of public policy scholars aims to provide evidence-based advice for policymaking with respect to climate finance. Important insights have been gained (e.g., the collection of research and practitioners' experiences in [3]), although we believe that many aspects are still severely understudied.
Climate Change and Open Science

Ian Percival

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1308.5533

2013-08-26

General Physics

Abstract:Obtaining reliable answers to the major scientific questions raised by climate change in time to take appropriate action gives added urgency to the open access program.
Expanding the scope of biogeochemical research to accelerate atmospheric carbon capture

Lucas C. R. Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-022-00957-1

IF: 4.812

2022-08-09

Biogeochemistry

Abstract:The unfolding climate crisis is in many respects a human issue, one caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO 2 to the atmosphere, and that can only be solved through a concerted effort across all sectors of society. In this prospective synthesis, I explain how expanding the scope of biogeochemical research would lead to a more rigorous and impactful climate change mitigation and adaptation agenda. Focusing on biogeochemistry as an area of interdisciplinary convergence, I review theories and empirical studies in the environmental and social sciences, to distill five principles and three phases of implementation for sustainable carbon capture projects. I discuss how land conservation, management, and restoration might be coordinated to prepare for climate change and to achieve multiple social and ecological benefits, including enhanced carbon drawdown and permanence on land. On the conservation front , the abundance of threatened plant and animal species spatially correlates with the distribution of carbon- and water-rich habitats within and across key regions, which can be prioritized for biodiversity protection with major climatic benefits. On the management front , long-term records of socioecological change warrant a revision of current models for sustainable forestry and agriculture in favor of decentralized system-specific prescriptions, including interventions where organic or inorganic carbon capture may improve wood and food production under future climate scenarios. On the restoration front , experiments in degraded landscapes reveal mechanisms of carbon stabilization, such as iron-coordination of organic complexes, which amplify the benefits of ecological succession and lead to carbon accumulation beyond thresholds predicted for undisturbed ecosystems. These examples illustrate the potential for innovation at the intersection of basic and applied biogeoscience, which could accelerate atmospheric carbon capture through new discoveries and collective action.

environmental sciences,geosciences, multidisciplinary
SHOW ME the evidence: Features of an approach to reliably deliver research evidence to those who need it

John N Lavis,Jeremy M Grimshaw,Ruth Stewart,Julian Elliott,Will Moy,Joerg J Meerpohl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ed000170

IF: 8.4

2024-11-22

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:The world is poised for a step‐change improvement in how we use evidence to address societal challenges. Given the speed at which plans are being made to support this once‐in‐a‐generation transformation, the Implementation Council of the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges developed a working version of the features of an approach to reliably getting research evidence to those who need it and achieved consensus among leaders from the Implementation Council, as well as the Alliance for Living Evidence (Alive) Council and Evidence Synthesis International (ESI). Drawing an acronym from the first letter of each of the six features, the 'SHOW ME the evidence' features are as follows. The 100+ contributing authors from across the 'evidence synthesis and support' world want to ensure that our future plans are firmly rooted in an agreed‐upon summary of all we have learned together over these past four or so years, and to signal a mutual accountability among many of the key players involved in providing evidence support that we will each do our part in delivering on the promise that motivates these plans. Given that much of the momentum for transformation is currently focused on living evidence syntheses and the infrastructure needed to support them, we give this form of evidence disproportionate focus here. An even more diverse set of partners should be engaged in designing and executing an inclusive process for the refinement or even reshaping of these features over time, as well as their ongoing operationalization. This includes more types of decision makers, those working with more forms of evidence, and funders, as well as even more contributors from across the Global South. Support systems locally that use many forms of research evidence to help address local priorities Every jurisdiction needs a reliable evidence‐support system to get whatever forms of evidence are needed to address a local priority into the hands of those who need it, when they need it, in whatever form they need it, and with any required caveats about its currency, quality, and local applicability [1]. Locally can mean nations as well as subnational jurisdictions like provinces and cities. It can mean formal regional groupings of countries like the European Union and informal regional groupings of small countries with shared challenges. It can also mean systems, like the health or social‐care system. The forms of evidence can include research evidence from the 'local' context (e.g. data analytics, evaluation, and behavioural or implementation research), research evidence from around the world (i.e. evidence synthesis), and other types of information (e.g. horizon scanning and people's lived experiences) and ways of knowing (e.g. Indigenous knowledge). Addressing a local priority is ideally informed by an understanding of a problem (and its causes and alternative ways of framing it), options to address the problem (including those already in use at a small scale), implementation considerations, and how to monitor implementation and evaluate impact. Research evidence can inform such understandings alongside political and social insights. Those who need research evidence can include government policy makers (from central agencies like Treasury, line departments like Education, and legislatures), organizational leaders (from both nongovernmental organizations and private companies), professionals (like nurses, teachers and veterinarians), and citizens (in the broadest sense of that term, and inclusive of undocumented individuals, as described in section 3.6 of the Global Evidence Commission report 2022). They also need enablers, culture and capacity for evidence use. Many decision makers need actionable insights from research evidence quickly when a 'window of opportunity' opens. Sometimes these windows are open for days, other times weeks, and rarely for longer. Evidence support can now work at the same speed as decision‐making processes. Some decision makers may want the evidence presented to them as 'best buys' (e.g. Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel), others by broad approach (e.g. Education Endowment Foundation), and still others by branded programme (e.g. IES What Works Clearinghouse). Applicability can mean both for local contexts and for groups in a range of contexts, including groups most affected by historical and acute inequities. Harmonized efforts globally that make it easier to learn from others around the world One aspect of evidence support that can now best be undertaken through harmonized efforts globally is to provide regularly updated summaries of what we have learned from around the world and how these findings vary by groups and contexts. 'Living evidence synthesis' is a relatively new approach to producing and maintaining these summaries [2]. The take‐up of this approach accelerated during the COVID‐19 pandemic -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Ten New Insights in Climate Science 2021: a Horizon Scan

Maria A. Martin,Olga Alcaraz Sendra,Ana Bastos,Nico Bauer,Christoph Bertram,Thorsten Blenckner,Kathryn Bowen,Paulo M. Brando,Tanya Brodie Rudolph,Milena Buchs,Mercedes Bustamante,Deliang Chen,Helen Cleugh,Purnamita Dasgupta,Fatima Denton,Jonathan F. Donges,Felix Kwabena Donkor,Hongbo Duan,Carlos M. Duarte,Kristie L. Ebi,Clea M. Edwards,Anja Engel,Eleanor Fisher,Sabine Fuss,Juliana Gaertner,Andrew Gettelman,Cecile A. J. Girardin,Nicholas R. Golledge,Jessica F. Green,Michael R. Grose,Masahiro Hashizume,Sophie Hebden,Helmke Hepach,Marina Hirota,Huang-Hsiung Hsu,Satoshi Kojima,Sharachchandra Lele,Sylvia Lorek,Heike K. Lotze,H. Damon Matthews,Darren McCauley,Desta Mebratu,Nadine Mengis,Rachael H. Nolan,Erik Pihl,Stefan Rahmstorf,Aaron Redman,Colleen E. Reid,Johan Rockstrom,Joeri Rogelj,Marielle Saunois,Lizzie Sayer,Peter Schlosser,Giles B. Sioen,Joachim H. Spangenberg,Detlef Stammer,Thomas N. S. Sterner,Nicola Stevens,Kirsten Thonicke,Hanqin Tian,Ricarda Winkelmann,James Woodcock

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.25

2021-01-01

Global Sustainability

Abstract:Non-technical summary We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements. Technical summary A synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature. Social media summary How do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.
Realizing the full potential of behavioural science for climate change mitigation

Kristian S. Nielsen,Viktoria Cologna,Jan M. Bauer,Sebastian Berger,Cameron Brick,Thomas Dietz,Ulf J. J. Hahnel,Laura Henn,Florian Lange,Paul C. Stern,Kimberly S. Wolske

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01951-1

IF: 30.7

2024-03-16

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:Behavioural science has yielded insights about the actions of individuals, particularly as consumers, that affect climate change. Behaviours in other spheres of life remain understudied. In this Perspective, we propose a collaborative research agenda that integrates behavioural science insights across multiple disciplines. To this end, we offer six recommendations for optimizing the quality and impact of research on individual climate behaviour. The recommendations are united by a shift towards more solutions-focused research that is directly useful to citizens, policymakers and other change agents. Achieving this vision will require overcoming challenges such as the limited funding for behavioural and social sciences and structural barriers within and beyond the academic system that impede collaborations across disciplines.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Science could solve some of the world's biggest problems. Why aren't governments using it?

Helen Pearson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03906-0

IF: 64.8

2024-12-04

Nature

Abstract:A Nature global survey finds that most specialists are unhappy with systems to provide science advice to policymakers. A Nature global survey finds that most specialists are unhappy with systems to provide science advice to policymakers.

multidisciplinary sciences
Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?

Paul Cairney,Kathryn Oliver

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x

2017-04-26

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:There is extensive health and public health literature on the ‘evidence-policy gap’, exploring the frustrating experiences of scientists trying to secure a response to the problems and solutions they raise and identifying the need for better evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. We offer a new perspective by using policy theory to propose research with greater impact, identifying the need to use persuasion to reduce ambiguity, and to adapt to multi-level policymaking systems.We identify insights from secondary data, namely systematic reviews, critical analysis and policy theories relevant to evidence-based policymaking. The studies are drawn primarily from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We combine empirical and normative elements to identify the ways in which scientists can, do and could influence policy.We identify two important dilemmas, for scientists and researchers, that arise from our initial advice. First, effective actors combine evidence with manipulative emotional appeals to influence the policy agenda – should scientists do the same, or would the reputational costs outweigh the policy benefits? Second, when adapting to multi-level policymaking, should scientists prioritise ‘evidence-based’ policymaking above other factors? The latter includes governance principles such the ‘co-production’ of policy between local public bodies, interest groups and service users. This process may be based primarily on values and involve actors with no commitment to a hierarchy of evidence.We conclude that successful engagement in ‘evidence-based policymaking’ requires pragmatism, combining scientific evidence with governance principles, and persuasion to translate complex evidence into simple stories. To maximise the use of scientific evidence in health and public health policy, researchers should recognise the tendency of policymakers to base judgements on their beliefs, and shortcuts based on their emotions and familiarity with information; learn ‘where the action is’, and be prepared to engage in long-term strategies to be able to influence policy; and, in both cases, decide how far you are willing to go to persuade policymakers to act and secure a hierarchy of evidence underpinning policy. These are value-driven and political, not just ‘evidence-based’, choices.

health policy & services
How relevant is climate change research for climate change policy? An empirical analysis based on Overton data

Lutz Bornmann,Robin Haunschild,Kevin Boyack,Werner Marx,Jan C. Minx

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274693

IF: 3.7

2022-09-22

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Climate change is an ongoing topic in nearly all areas of society since many years. A discussion of climate change without referring to scientific results is not imaginable. This is especially the case for policies since action on the macro scale is required to avoid costly consequences for society. In this study, we deal with the question of how research on climate change and policy are connected. In 2019, the new Overton database of policy documents was released including links to research papers that are cited by policy documents. The use of results and recommendations from research on climate change might be reflected in citations of scientific papers in policy documents. Although we suspect a lot of uncertainty related to the coverage of policy documents in Overton, there seems to be an impact of international climate policy cycles on policy document publication. We observe local peaks in climate policy documents around major decisions in international climate diplomacy. Our results point out that IGOs and think tanks–with a focus on climate change–have published more climate change policy documents than expected. We found that climate change papers that are cited in climate change policy documents received significantly more citations on average than climate change papers that are not cited in these documents. Both areas of society (science and policy) focus on similar climate change research fields: biology, earth sciences, engineering, and disease sciences. Based on these and other empirical results in this study, we propose a simple model of policy impact considering a chain of different document types: The chain starts with scientific assessment reports (systematic reviews) that lead via science communication documents (policy briefs, policy reports or plain language summaries) and government reports to legislative documents.

multidisciplinary sciences
The structure of the climate debate

Richard S.J. Tol

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1608.05597

2016-08-19

Abstract:First-best climate policy is a uniform carbon tax which gradually rises over time. Civil servants have complicated climate policy to expand bureaucracies, politicians to create rents. Environmentalists have exaggerated climate change to gain influence, other activists have joined the climate bandwagon. Opponents to climate policy have attacked the weaknesses in climate research. The climate debate is convoluted and polarized as a result, and climate policy complex. Climate policy should become easier and more rational as the Paris Agreement has shifted climate policy back towards national governments. Changing political priorities, austerity, and a maturing bureaucracy should lead to a more constructive climate debate.

General Economics,Econometrics,General Finance
Climate policy to defeat the green paradox

Stefan Fölster,Johan Nyström

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0030-7

IF: 6.94

AMBIO

Abstract:Carbon dioxide emissions have accelerated since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. This discouraging development may partly be blamed on accelerating world growth and on lags in policy instruments. However, it also raises serious question concerning whether policies to reduce CO2 emissions are as effective as generally assumed. In recent years, a considerable number of studies have identified various feedback mechanisms of climate policies that often erode, and occasionally reinforce, their effectiveness. These studies generally focus on a few feedback mechanisms at a time, without capturing the entire effect. Partial accounting of policy feedbacks is common in many climate scenarios. The IPCC, for example, only accounts for direct leakage and rebound effects. This article attempts to map the aggregate effects of different types of climate policy feedback mechanisms in a cohesive framework. Controlling feedback effects is essential if the policy measures are to make any difference on a global level. A general conclusion is that aggregate policy feedback mechanisms tend to make current climate policies much less effective than is generally assumed. In fact, various policy measures involve a definite risk of 'backfiring' and actually increasing CO2 emissions. This risk is particularly pronounced once effects of climate policies on the pace of innovation in climate technology are considered. To stand any chance of controlling carbon emissions, it is imperative that feedback mechanisms are integrated into emission scenarios, targets for emission reduction and implementation of climate policy. In many cases, this will reduce the scope for subsidies to renewable energy sources, but increase the scope for other measures such as schemes to return carbon dioxide to the ground and to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases from wetlands and oceans. A framework that incorporates policy feedback effects necessitates rethinking the design of the national and regional emission targets. This leads us to a new way of formulating emission targets that include feedback effects, the global impact target. Once the full climate policy feedback mechanisms are accounted for, there are probably only three main routes in climate policy that stand a chance of mitigating global warming: (a) returning carbon to the ground, (b) technological leaps in zero-emission energy technology that make it profitable to leave much carbon in the ground even in Annex II countries and (c) international agreements that make it more profitable to leave carbon in the ground or in forests.
Unpacking climate policy

Navroz K. Dubash

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq0862

IF: 56.9

2024-06-07

Science

Abstract:As temperatures and evidence of climate impacts mount, so too do pressures to enhance climate policy ambition and implementation. In a previous piece, I have argued that to respond to these pressures requires rebalancing focus from target setting to implementation through policy formulation and enactment. But following through on policy and its implementation brings its own challenges. One size seldom fits all, and effective climate action requires bespoke policy-making to tailor policy to national context . This includes, critically, framing policy to win support in diverse national political contexts.

multidisciplinary sciences

What's the best way to tackle climate change? An 'evidence bank' could help scientists find answers

Scientists are building a giant 'evidence banks' to create policies that actually work

Ten New Insights in Climate Science 2024

Ten new insights in climate science 2023

Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges

Ten New Insights in Climate Science 2023/2024

Evidence-informed climate policy: mobilising strategic research and pooling expertise for rapid evidence generation

Designing an effective climate-policy mix: accounting for instrument synergy

How to climate-proof crops: scientists say the secret's in the dirt

Policies for climate finance: Status and research needs

Climate Change and Open Science

Expanding the scope of biogeochemical research to accelerate atmospheric carbon capture

SHOW ME the evidence: Features of an approach to reliably deliver research evidence to those who need it

Ten New Insights in Climate Science 2021: a Horizon Scan

Realizing the full potential of behavioural science for climate change mitigation

Science could solve some of the world's biggest problems. Why aren't governments using it?

Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?

How relevant is climate change research for climate change policy? An empirical analysis based on Overton data

The structure of the climate debate

Climate policy to defeat the green paradox

Unpacking climate policy