Anthropogenic climate change, caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, will have negative if not catastrophic consequences for the livelihoods of many across the globe. With the Paris Agreement in 2015, most countries have pledged to reduce territorial GHG emissions. Per-capita emission levels are highest in today's rich countries, and many have started reducing their emissions. Current middle-income economies such as China, Ghana, India or Indonesia have experienced rapid economic, population, and emission growth in recent years, and today's poor countries are projected to be responsible ...
Anthropogenic climate change, caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, will have negative if not catastrophic consequences for the livelihoods of many across the globe. With the Paris Agreement in 2015, most countries have pledged to reduce territorial GHG emissions. Per-capita emission levels are highest in today's rich countries, and many have started reducing their emissions. Current middle-income economies such as China, Ghana, India or Indonesia have experienced rapid economic, population, and emission growth in recent years, and today's poor countries are projected to be responsible ...
Abstract Why is disbelief in anthropogenic climate change common despite broad scientific consensus to the contrary? A widely held explanation involves politically motivated (system 2) reasoning: Rather than helping uncover the truth, people use their reasoning abilities to protect their partisan identities and reject beliefs that threaten those identities. Despite the popularity of this account, the evidence supporting it (i) does not account for the fact that partisanship is confounded with prior beliefs about the world and (ii) is entirely correlational with respect to the effect of reasoning. Here, we address these shortcomings by (i) measuring prior beliefs and (ii) experimentally manipulating participants' extent of reasoning using cognitive load and time pressure while they evaluate arguments for or against anthropogenic global warming. The results provide no support for the politically motivated system 2 reasoning account over other accounts: Engaging in more reasoning led people to have greater coherence between judgments and their prior beliefs about climate change—a process that can be consistent with rational (unbiased) Bayesian reasoning—and did not exacerbate the impact of partisanship once prior beliefs are accounted for.
This PhD thesis deals with the Brazilian Proposal, that is the assessment of national contributions to anthropogenic climate change. To answer the Proposal, we have developed a compact Earth system model, named OSCAR v2.1. The carbon cycle (CO2, CH4), the atmospheric chemistry of greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, O3, halogenated compounds), as well as aerosols and climate dynamics are included in this model. It is driven by anthropogenic emissions of active compounds, and by land-use changes. After acknowledging the ability of the model to reproduce past observations of the main climatic variables, and after exposing the fundamental principles of attribution exercises, we attribute climate change to its anthropogenic causes. We find that the climate feedback -- over both the carbon cycle and the atmospheric chemistry -- has a prominent effect that exacerbates the relative importance of each anthropogenic forcing. In decreasing order, emissions of fossil carbon dioxide, of sulfur dioxide, of methane, and land-use changes, are found to be the most important contributors to climate change in 2008. Through these forcings, the so-called developing countries are now contributing more to climate change than the so-called developed countries. It is however still the contrary on a per capita basis; but we show that such an accounting approach makes it impossible to reach equity within a less-than-two-degree warming trajectory. ; Cette thèse traite du Brazilian Proposal, c'est-à-dire de la détermination des contributions nationales au changement climatique d'origine humaine. Pour répondre à cette question, nous avons développé un modèle compact du système Terre, OSCAR v2.1. Ce modèle intègre une représentation du cycle du carbone (CO2, CH4), de la chimie atmosphérique des gaz à effet de serre (CH4, N2O, O3, composés halogénés), mais également des aérosols et de la dynamique climatique. Il est forcé en émissions anthropiques de composés actifs et en changements d'usage des sols. Après avoir constaté la bonne capacité du modèle à reproduire les observations passées des principales grandeurs climatiques, et après avoir énoncé les grands principes régissant les exercices d'attribution, nous attribuons les causes anthropiques du changement climatique. Nous trouvons que la rétroaction climatique, sur le cycle du carbone et sur la chimie atmosphérique, a un effet prépondérant qui exacerbe l'importance relative de chaque forçage anthropique. Par ordre décroissant, émissions de dioxyde de carbone fossile, de dioxyde de soufre, de méthane, et usages des sols, sont trouvés comme étant les plus importants contributeurs au changement climatique en 2008. A travers ces forçages, les pays dits en développements sont dorénavant de plus grands contributeurs au changement climatique que les pays dits développés. C'est cependant toujours l'inverse si l'on résonne en contribution par tête ; mais nous montrons qu'un tel raisonnement rend incompatibles une trajectoire de réchauffement inférieur à deux degrés et équitable.
This PhD thesis deals with the Brazilian Proposal, that is the assessment of national contributions to anthropogenic climate change. To answer the Proposal, we have developed a compact Earth system model, named OSCAR v2.1. The carbon cycle (CO2, CH4), the atmospheric chemistry of greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, O3, halogenated compounds), as well as aerosols and climate dynamics are included in this model. It is driven by anthropogenic emissions of active compounds, and by land-use changes. After acknowledging the ability of the model to reproduce past observations of the main climatic variables, and after exposing the fundamental principles of attribution exercises, we attribute climate change to its anthropogenic causes. We find that the climate feedback -- over both the carbon cycle and the atmospheric chemistry -- has a prominent effect that exacerbates the relative importance of each anthropogenic forcing. In decreasing order, emissions of fossil carbon dioxide, of sulfur dioxide, of methane, and land-use changes, are found to be the most important contributors to climate change in 2008. Through these forcings, the so-called developing countries are now contributing more to climate change than the so-called developed countries. It is however still the contrary on a per capita basis; but we show that such an accounting approach makes it impossible to reach equity within a less-than-two-degree warming trajectory. ; Cette thèse traite du Brazilian Proposal, c'est-à-dire de la détermination des contributions nationales au changement climatique d'origine humaine. Pour répondre à cette question, nous avons développé un modèle compact du système Terre, OSCAR v2.1. Ce modèle intègre une représentation du cycle du carbone (CO2, CH4), de la chimie atmosphérique des gaz à effet de serre (CH4, N2O, O3, composés halogénés), mais également des aérosols et de la dynamique climatique. Il est forcé en émissions anthropiques de composés actifs et en changements d'usage des sols. Après avoir constaté la bonne capacité du modèle à reproduire les observations passées des principales grandeurs climatiques, et après avoir énoncé les grands principes régissant les exercices d'attribution, nous attribuons les causes anthropiques du changement climatique. Nous trouvons que la rétroaction climatique, sur le cycle du carbone et sur la chimie atmosphérique, a un effet prépondérant qui exacerbe l'importance relative de chaque forçage anthropique. Par ordre décroissant, émissions de dioxyde de carbone fossile, de dioxyde de soufre, de méthane, et usages des sols, sont trouvés comme étant les plus importants contributeurs au changement climatique en 2008. A travers ces forçages, les pays dits en développements sont dorénavant de plus grands contributeurs au changement climatique que les pays dits développés. C'est cependant toujours l'inverse si l'on résonne en contribution par tête ; mais nous montrons qu'un tel raisonnement rend incompatibles une trajectoire de réchauffement inférieur à deux degrés et équitable.
This PhD thesis deals with the Brazilian Proposal, that is the assessment of national contributions to anthropogenic climate change. To answer the Proposal, we have developed a compact Earth system model, named OSCAR v2.1. The carbon cycle (CO2, CH4), the atmospheric chemistry of greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, O3, halogenated compounds), as well as aerosols and climate dynamics are included in this model. It is driven by anthropogenic emissions of active compounds, and by land-use changes. After acknowledging the ability of the model to reproduce past observations of the main climatic variables, and after exposing the fundamental principles of attribution exercises, we attribute climate change to its anthropogenic causes. We find that the climate feedback -- over both the carbon cycle and the atmospheric chemistry -- has a prominent effect that exacerbates the relative importance of each anthropogenic forcing. In decreasing order, emissions of fossil carbon dioxide, of sulfur dioxide, of methane, and land-use changes, are found to be the most important contributors to climate change in 2008. Through these forcings, the so-called developing countries are now contributing more to climate change than the so-called developed countries. It is however still the contrary on a per capita basis; but we show that such an accounting approach makes it impossible to reach equity within a less-than-two-degree warming trajectory. ; Cette thèse traite du Brazilian Proposal, c'est-à-dire de la détermination des contributions nationales au changement climatique d'origine humaine. Pour répondre à cette question, nous avons développé un modèle compact du système Terre, OSCAR v2.1. Ce modèle intègre une représentation du cycle du carbone (CO2, CH4), de la chimie atmosphérique des gaz à effet de serre (CH4, N2O, O3, composés halogénés), mais également des aérosols et de la dynamique climatique. Il est forcé en émissions anthropiques de composés actifs et en changements d'usage des sols. Après avoir constaté la bonne capacité du modèle à reproduire les observations passées des principales grandeurs climatiques, et après avoir énoncé les grands principes régissant les exercices d'attribution, nous attribuons les causes anthropiques du changement climatique. Nous trouvons que la rétroaction climatique, sur le cycle du carbone et sur la chimie atmosphérique, a un effet prépondérant qui exacerbe l'importance relative de chaque forçage anthropique. Par ordre décroissant, émissions de dioxyde de carbone fossile, de dioxyde de soufre, de méthane, et usages des sols, sont trouvés comme étant les plus importants contributeurs au changement climatique en 2008. A travers ces forçages, les pays dits en développements sont dorénavant de plus grands contributeurs au changement climatique que les pays dits développés. C'est cependant toujours l'inverse si l'on résonne en contribution par tête ; mais nous montrons qu'un tel raisonnement rend incompatibles une trajectoire de réchauffement inférieur à deux degrés et équitable.
Abstract This article studies successive Soviet and Russian government positions on climate change between the late 1980s and the Putin era. It thereby bridges a gap between expanding research on both the role of the Soviet Union in climate change science and diplomacy and on Russian climate change policy after the turn of the millennium. While far-reaching late Soviet plans for decisive participation in the groundbreaking Rio Earth Summit contrasted with the lack of priority accorded to it by Russia during a period of political and economic turmoil, this article argues that there was, before and after 1991, a remarkable continuity of real concern in government about anthropogenic climate change and its negative consequences, not least for the Soviet Union and Russia. This continuity of concern took form in 1989 and lasted for a decade. In contrast to the misleading picture presented to outside observers, notably by the highly visible Yuri Izrael' and some of the Russian delegations at international climate conferences in the 1990s, a neglect of anthropogenic climate change and its dangers for Russia took hold in the Russian government only after Vladimir Putin came to power. A renewed official recognition of the dangers of anthropogenic climate change materialized only with the 2009 Climate Doctrine. However, until recently this recognition remained half-hearted in comparison with the clear government positions of the late 1980s and the 1990s.
"This book is aimed at non-science-major undergraduates and is tightly focused on the problem of anthropogenic climate change. The first half of the book focuses on the science of modern climate change, including evidence that the Earth is warming and a basic description of climate physics. It also covers concepts like radiative forcing, feedbacks, and the carbon cycle. The book shows many algebraibased calculations to illustrate the science. The second half of the book goes beyond science to address non-science issues such as the economics and our policy options to address climate change. The goal of the book is for a student to leave the class ready to engage in the public policy debate on this issue"--Provided by publisher
A growing literature has sought to understand the relationships between religion, politics and views about climate change and climate change policy in the United States. However, little comparative research has been conducted in other countries. This study draws on data from the 2011 Australian National Church Life Survey to examine the beliefs of Australian churchgoers from some 20 denominations about climate change—whether or not it is real and whether it is caused by humans—and political factors that explain variation in these beliefs. Pentecostals, Baptist and Churches of Christ churchgoers, and people from the smallest Protestant denominations were less likely than other churchgoers to believe in anthropogenic climate change, and voting and hierarchical and individualistic views about society predicted beliefs. There was some evidence that these views function differently in relation to climate change beliefs depending on churchgoers' degree of opposition to gay rights. These findings are of interest not only for the sake of international comparisons, but also in a context where Australia plays a role in international climate change politics that is disproportionate to its small population.
Introduction: Multiple Perspectives on an Increasingly Uncertain World -- Recombinant Responses : 1. Climate Change Never Travels Alone -- 2. Climate Change, Moral Meteorology and Local Measures at Quyllurit'i, a High Andean Shrine -- 3. Religious Explanations for Coastal Erosion in Narikoso, Fiji -- Local Knowledge : 4. "Nature Can Heal Itself" -- 5. Maya Cosmology and Contesting Climate Change in Mesoamerica -- 6. Anthropogenic Climate Change, Anxiety, and the Sacred -- Loss, Anxiety, and Doubt : 7. The Vanishing of Father White Glacier -- 8. Loss and Recovery in the Himalayas -- Religious Transformations : 9. Angry Gods and Raging Rivers -- 10. Recasting the Sacred -- Conclusion: Religion and Climate Change.
This chapter analyzes the evolution of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from a specialist organization of climate scientists into an institution at the nexus of science and politics. We explain how the IPCC became the primary scientific authority for policymakers, the public, and climate activists on the existence, severity, consequences of, and, increasingly, possible solutions to anthropogenic climate change. We assess its influence on policymakers and governments, while examining the various tensions, critiques, and contradictions that the organization and its leaders have had to grapple with across its 32-year history, during which it successfully developed a distinct identity as a trusted provider of comprehensive scientific assessments. Our analysis also focuses on the institutional reforms that helped restore legitimacy to IPCC after 'climategate' and other controversies. ; CNDS
This chapter analyzes the evolution of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from a specialist organization of climate scientists into an institution at the nexus of science and politics. We explain how the IPCC became the primary scientific authority for policymakers, the public, and climate activists on the existence, severity, consequences of, and, increasingly, possible solutions to anthropogenic climate change. We assess its influence on policymakers and governments, while examining the various tensions, critiques, and contradictions that the organization and its leaders have had to grapple with across its 32-year history, during which it successfully developed a distinct identity as a trusted provider of comprehensive scientific assessments. Our analysis also focuses on the institutional reforms that helped restore legitimacy to IPCC after 'climategate' and other controversies. ; QC 20201125
"Climate change has long been a contentious issue, even before its official acknowledgment as a global threat in 1979. Government policies have varied widely, from Barack Obama's dedication to environmentalism to George W. Bush's tacit minimizing of the problem to Republican officials' refusal to acknowledge the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change"--
