Filters

20203

More filters

20213
Reset filters

Settings

End date: 2024 × Start date: 2020 × Publisher: Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press × WGL Institute: PIK ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessment of the growth in social groups for sustainable agriculture and land management
    (Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020) Pretty, Jules; Attwood, Simon; Bawden, Richard; van den Berg, Henk; Bharucha, Zareen P.; Dixon, John; Butler Flora, Cornelia; Gallagher, Kevin; Genskow, Ken; Hartley, Sue E.; Ketelaar, Jan Willem; Kiara, Japhet K.; Kumar, Vijay; Lu, Yuelai; MacMillan, Tom; Maréchal, Anne; Morales-Abubakar, Alma Linda; Noble, Andrew; Prasad, P. V. Vara; Rametsteiner, Ewald; Reganold, John; Ricks, Jacob I.; Rockström, Johan; Saito, Osamu; Thorne, Peter; Wang, Songliang; Wittman, Hannah; Winter, Michael; Yang, Puyun
    Non-technical summary Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now support further transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability. Social media summary Millions of geographically based new social groups are leading to more sustainable agriculture and forestry worldwide. © The Author(s), 2020.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Corona and the climate: A comparison of two emergencies
    (Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020) Vinke, Kira; Gabrysch, Sabine; Paoletti, Emanuela; Rockström, Johan; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim
    Social media summary Lessons from the corona crisis can help manage the even more daunting challenge of anthropogenic global warming. © The Author(s), 2020.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Discourses of climate delay
    (Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020) Lamb, William F.; Mattioli, Giulio; Levi, Sebastian; Roberts, J. Timmons; Capstick, Stuart; Creutzig, Felix; Minx, Jan C.; Müller-Hansen, Finn; Culhane, Trevor; Steinberger, Julia K.
    Non-technical summary: Discourses of climate delay' pervade current debates on climate action. These discourses accept the existence of climate change, but justify inaction or inadequate efforts. In contemporary discussions on what actions should be taken, by whom and how fast, proponents of climate delay would argue for minimal action or action taken by others. They focus attention on the negative social effects of climate policies and raise doubt that mitigation is possible. Here, we outline the common features of climate delay discourses and provide a guide to identifying them. Technical summary: Through our collective observations as social scientists studying climate change, we describe 12 climate delay discourses and develop a typology based on their underlying logic. Delay discourses can be grouped into those that: (1) redirect responsibility; (2) push non-transformative solutions; (3) emphasize the downsides of climate policies; or (4) surrender to climate change. These discourses are distinct from climate denialism, climate-impact scepticism and ad hominem attacks, but are often used in combination to erode public and political support for climate policies. A deeper investigation of climate delay discourses is necessary in order to understand their prevalence and to develop inoculation strategies that protect the public from their intended effects. Our typology enables scientists, climate advocates and policymakers to recognize and counter these arguments when they are used. We urge all proponents of climate action to address these common misrepresentations of the climate crisis and to better communicate the dramatic pace of global warming, the gravity of its impacts and the possibility of effective and just mitigation policies. Social media summary: Discourses of climate delay: redirect responsibility, push non-transformative solutions, emphasize downsides, surrender. © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Cambridge University Press.