5 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
- ItemA Diverse View of Science to Catalyse Change(Weinheim : Wiley-VCH, 2020) Urbina-Blanco, César A.; Jilani, Safia Z.; Speight, Isaiah R.; Bojdys, Michael J.; Friščić, Tomislav; Stoddart, J. Fraser; Nelson, Toby L.; Mack, James; Robinson, Renã A.S.; Waddell, Emanuel A.; Lutkenhaus, Jodie L.; Godfrey, Murrell; Abboud, Martine I.; Aderinto, Stephen O.; Aderohunmu, Damilola; Bibič, Lučka; Borges, João; Dong, Vy M.; Ferrins, Lori; Fung, Fun Man; John, Torsten; Lim, Felicia P.L.; Masters, Sarah L.; Mambwe, Dickson; Thordarson, Pall; Titirici, Maria-Magdalena; Tormet-González, Gabriela D.; Unterlass, Miriam M.; Wadle, Austin; Yam, Vivian W.-W.; Yang, Ying-WeiValuing diversity leads to scientific excellence, the progress of science and most importantly, it is simply the right thing to do. We can value diversity not only in words, but also in actions. From the structure of DNA,1 to computer science,2 and space-station batteries,3 several key scientific discoveries that enhance our lives today, were made by marginalized scientists. These three scientists, Rosalind E. Franklin, Alan M. Turing and Olga D. González-Sanabria, did not conform to the cultural expectations of how scientists should look and behave. Unfortunately, marginalized scientists are often viewed as just a resource rather than the lifeblood that constitutes science itself. We need to embrace scientists from all walks of life and corners of the globe; this will also mean that nobody is excluded from tackling the life-threatening societal challenges that lie ahead. An awareness of science policy is essential to safeguarding our future. Science policy deals with creating the framework and codes of conduct that determine how science can best serve society.4-6 Discussions around science policy are often accompanied by anecdotes of “good” and “bad” practices regarding the merits of diversity and inclusion. Excellence and truth, which flow inexorably from diversity and inclusion, are the bedrocks upon which science should influence political and economic outcomes. A vital area of science policy is to support the professional development of marginalized scientists, an objective that must be acted upon by scientific leaders and communicators...
- ItemNational contributions for decarbonizing the world economy in line with the G7 agreement(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2016) du Pont, Yann Robiou; Jeffery, M. Louise; Gütschow, Johannes; Christoff, Peter; Meinshausen, MalteIn June 2015, the G7 agreed to two global mitigation goals: 'a decarbonization of the global economy over the course of this century' and 'the upper end of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendation of 40%–70% reductions by 2050 compared to 2010'. These IPCC recommendations aim to preserve a likely (>66%) chance of limiting global warming to 2 °C but are not necessarily consistent with the stronger ambition of the subsequent Paris Agreement of 'holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels'. The G7 did not specify global or national emissions scenarios consistent with its own agreement. Here we identify global cost-optimal emissions scenarios from Integrated Assessment Models that match the G7 agreement. These scenarios have global 2030 emissions targets of 11%–43% below 2010, global net negative CO2 emissions starting between 2056 and 2080, and some exhibit net negative greenhouse gas emissions from 2080 onwards. We allocate emissions from these global scenarios to countries according to five equity approaches representative of the five equity categories presented in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCCAR5): 'capability', 'equality', 'responsibility-capability-need', 'equal cumulative per capita' and 'staged approaches'. Our results show that G7 members' Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDCs) mitigation targets are in line with a grandfathering approach but lack ambition to meet various visions of climate justice. The INDCs of China and Russia fall short of meeting the requirements of any allocation approach. Depending on how their INDCs are evaluated, the INDCs of India and Brazil can match some equity approaches evaluated in this study.
- ItemWhat are the social outcomes of climate policies? A systematic map and review of the ex-post literature(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2020) Lamb, William F.; Antal, Miklós; Bohnenberger, Katharina; Brand-Correa, Lina I.; Müller-Hansen, Finn; Jakob, Michael; Minx, Jan C.; Raiser, Kilian; Williams, Laurence; Sovacool, Benjamin K.It is critical to ensure climate and energy policies are just, equitable and beneficial for communities, both to sustain public support for decarbonisation and address multifaceted societal challenges. Our objective in this article is to examine the diverse social outcomes that have resulted from climate policies, in varying contexts worldwide, over the past few decades. We review 203 ex-post climate policy assessments that analyse social outcomes in the literature. We systematically and comprehensively map out this work, identifying articles on carbon, energy and transport taxes, feed-in-tariffs, subsidies, direct procurement policies, large renewable deployment projects, and other regulatory and market-based interventions. We code each article in terms of their studied social outcomes and effects, with a focus on electricity access, energy affordability, community cohesion, employment, distributional and equity issues, livelihoods and poverty, procedural justice, subjective well-being and drudgery. Our analysis finds that climate and energy policies often fall short of delivering positive social outcomes. Nonetheless, across country contexts and policy types there are manifold examples of climate policymaking that does deliver on both social and climate goals. This requires attending to distributive and procedural justice in policy design, and making use of appropriate mechanisms to ensure that policy costs and benefits are fairly shared. We emphasize the need to further advance ex-post policy assessments and learn about what policies work for a just transition.
- ItemIdentifying a Safe and Just Corridor for People and the Planet(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2021) Rockström, Johan; Gupta, Joyeeta; Lenton, Timothy M.; Qin, Dahe; Lade, Steven J.; Abrams, Jesse F.; Jacobson, Lisa; Rocha, Juan C.; Zimm, Caroline; Bai, Xuemei; Bala, Govindasamy; Bringezu, Stefan; Broadgate, Wendy; Bunn, Stuart E.; DeClerck, Fabrice; Ebi, Kristie L.; Gong, Peng; Gordon, Chris; Kanie, Norichika; Liverman, Diana M.; Nakicenovic, Nebojsa; Obura, David; Ramanathan, Veerabhadran; Verburg, Peter H.; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Winkelmann, RicardaKeeping the Earth system in a stable and resilient state, to safeguard Earth's life support systems while ensuring that Earth's benefits, risks, and related responsibilities are equitably shared, constitutes the grand challenge for human development in the Anthropocene. Here, we describe a framework that the recently formed Earth Commission will use to define and quantify target ranges for a “safe and just corridor” that meets these goals. Although “safe” and “just” Earth system targets are interrelated, we see safe as primarily referring to a stable Earth system and just targets as being associated with meeting human needs and reducing exposure to risks. To align safe and just dimensions, we propose to address the equity dimensions of each safe target for Earth system regulating systems and processes. The more stringent of the safe or just target ranges then defines the corridor. Identifying levers of social transformation aimed at meeting the safe and just targets and challenges associated with translating the corridor to actors at multiple scales present scope for future work.
- ItemUnintentional unfairness when applying new greenhouse gas emissions metrics at country level(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2019) Rogelj, Joeri; Schleussner, Carl-FriedrichThe 2015 Paris Agreement sets out that rapid reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are needed to keep global warming to safe levels. A new approach (known as GWP*) has been suggested to compare contributions of long- and short-lived GHGs, providing a close link between cumulative CO2-equivalent emissions and total warming. However, comparison factors for non-CO2 GHGs under the GWP* metric depend on past emissions, and hence raise questions of equity and fairness when applied at any but the global level. The use of GWP* would put most developing countries at a disadvantage compared to developed countries, because when using GWP* countries with high historical emissions of short-lived GHGs are exempted from accounting for avoidable future warming that is caused by sustaining these emissions. We show that when various established equity or fairness criteria are applied to GWP* (defined here as eGWP*), perceived national non-CO2 emissions vary by more than an order of magnitude, particularly in countries with high methane emissions like New Zealand. We show that national emission estimates that use GWP* are very sensitive to arbitrary choices made by countries and therewith facilitate the creation of loopholes when CO2-equivalent emissions based on the GWP* concept are traded between countries that use different approaches. In light of such equity-dependent accounting differences, GHG metrics like GWP* should only be used at the global level. A common, transparent and equity-neutral accounting metric is vital for the Paris Agreement's effectiveness and its environmental integrity.