Suchergebnisse

Describes the two phases of the El Niño Southern Oscillation event, and its impact on the world's weather, human welfare, and regional economic activities. Temperature, storms, disaster management, and price rises.

Foreword / N.K. Dubash -- Why the need for this book? / M. Hulme and K. De Pryck -- Origin and design / T. Skodvin -- Procedures / O. Leclerc -- Venues / F. Hartz and K. De Pryck -- Reports / J.E. Livingston -- Learning / S. Beck and B. Siebenhüner -- Participant diversity / A. Standring -- Early career researchers / K.M. Gustafsson -- Governments / H. Hughes -- Observers / Y. Yamineva -- Peer review / P.N. Edwards -- Disciplines / A.C. Petersen -- Indigenous knowledge systems / B. Van Bavel, J. Petrasek MacDonald and D. Sambo Dorough -- Climate models / H. Guillemot -- Scenarios / B. Cointe -- Controversies / S. Asayama, K. De Pryck S. Asayama, K. De Pryck and M. Hulme -- Uncertainty / J. O'Reilly -- Integration / M. Vardy -- Scientific consensus-seeking / M. Hulme -- Governmental approval / K. De Pryck -- Policy relevance and neutrality / M. Mahony -- Political context / R. Lidskog and G. Sundqvist -- Civic epistemologies / J.C.H. Miguel, R.R. Taddei and M. Monteiro -- Boundary objects / B. Lahn -- Visuals / I. Lorenzoni and J. Harold -- Communications / W. Pearce and A. Lindemer -- Re-imagining the IPCC : a proposal / C.A. Miller -- What has this book achieved? / K. De Pryck and M. Hulme.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has become a hugely influential institution. It is the authoritative voice on the science on climate change, and an exemplar of an intergovernmental science-policy interface. This book introduces the IPCC as an institution, covering its origins, history, processes, participants, products, and influence. Discussing its internal workings and operating principles, it shows how IPCC assessments are produced and how consensus is reached between scientific and policy experts from different institutions, countries, and social groups. A variety of practices and discourses - epistemic, diplomatic, procedural, communicative - that make the institution function are critically assessed, allowing the reader to learn from its successes and failures. This volume is the go-to reference for researchers studying or active within the IPCC, as well as invaluable for students concerned with global environmental problems and climate governance. This title is also available as Open Access via Cambridge Core.

In this paper we draw on Science and Technology (STS) approaches to develop a comparative analytical account of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The establishment of both of these organizations, in 1988 and 2012 respectively, represented important 'constitutional moments' in the global arrangement of scientific assessment and its relationship to environmental policymaking. Global environmental assessments all share some similarities, operating at the articulation between science and policy and pursuing explicit societal goals. Although the IPCC and IPBES have different objectives, they are both intergovernmental processes geared towards the provision of knowledge to inform political debates about, respectively, climate change and biodiversity loss. In spite of these similarities, we show that there are significant differences in their knowledge practices and these differences have implications for environmental governance. We do this by comparing the IPCC and IPBES across three dimensions: conceptual frameworks, scenarios and consensus practices. We argue that, broadly speaking, the IPCC has produced a 'view from nowhere', through a reliance on mathematical modelling to produce a consensual picture of global climate change, which is then 'downscaled' to considerations of local impacts and responses. By contrast IPBES, through its contrasting conceptual frameworks and practices of argumentation, appears to seek a 'view from everywhere', inclusive of epistemic plurality, and through which a global picture emerges through an aggregation of more placed-based knowledges. We conclude that, despite these aspirations, both organizations in fact offer 'views from somewhere': situated sets of knowledge marked by politico-epistemic struggles and shaped by the interests, priorities and voices of certain powerful actors. Characterizing this 'somewhere' might be aided by the concept of institutional epistemology, a term we propose to capture how particular knowledge practices become stabilized within international expert organizations. We suggest that such a concept, by drawing attention to the institutions' knowledge practices, helps reveal their world-making effects and, by doing so, enables more reflexive governance of both expert organizations and of global environmental change in general.

In this paper we draw on Science and Technology (STS) approaches to develop a comparative analytical account of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The establishment of both of these organizations, in 1988 and 2012 respectively, represented important 'constitutional moments' in the global arrangement of scientific assessment and its relationship to environmental policymaking. Global environmental assessments all share some similarities, operating at the articulation between science and policy and pursuing explicit societal goals. Although the IPCC and IPBES have different objectives, they are both intergovernmental processes geared towards the provision of knowledge to inform political debates about, respectively, climate change and biodiversity loss. In spite of these similarities, we show that there are significant differences in their knowledge practices and these differences have implications for environmental governance. We do this by comparing the IPCC and IPBES across three dimensions: conceptual frameworks, scenarios and consensus . We argue that, broadly speaking, the IPCC has produced a 'view from nowhere', through a reliance on mathematical modelling to produce a consensual picture of global climate change, which is then 'downscaled' to considerations of local impacts and responses. By contrast IPBES, through its contrasting conceptual frameworks and practices of argumentation, appears to seek a 'view from everywhere', inclusive of epistemic plurality, and through which a global picture emerges through an aggregation of more placed-based knowledges. We conclude that, despite these aspirations, both organizations in fact offer 'views from somewhere': situated sets of knowledge marked by politico-epistemic struggles and shaped by the interests, priorities and voices of certain powerful actors. Characterizing this 'somewhere' might be aided by the concept of institutional epistemology, a term we propose to capture how particular knowledge practices become stabilized within international expert organizations. We suggest that such a concept, by drawing attention to the institutions' knowledge practices, helps reveal their world-making effects and, by doing so, enables more reflexive governance of both expert organizations and of global environmental change in general.

This will be invaluable reading for professionals, researchers and academics interested in climate change and climate policy, policy makers, policy analysts, energy consultants, and representatives from industry planning their own long-term energy strategies.

This special issue of the Climate Policy journal addresses the following key questions: * What long-term range of policies for climate change adaptation and mitigation should Europe pursue to adequately enhance sustainability on a global level? * What are the implications of long-term European climate strategy for the design of a global post-2012 climate regime? * What are the key concerns of different stakeholders and how will these concerns impact on long-term climate policy?These questions were discussed during two workshops, commissioned by the European Forum on Integrated Environmental As.

The world's climate is changing and will continue to change into the coming century at rates projected to be unprecedented in recent human history. The risks associated with these changes are real but highly uncertain. Societal vulnerability to the risks associated with climate change may exacerbate ongoing social and economic challenges, particularly for those parts of societies dependent on resources that are sensitive to changes in climate. Risks are apparent in agriculture, fisheries and many other components that constitute the livelihood of rural populations in developing countries. In this paper we explore the nature of risk and vulnerability in the context of climate change and review the evidence on present-day adaptation in developing countries and on coordinated international action on future adaptation. We argue that all societies are fundamentally adaptive and there are many situations in the past where societies have adapted to changes in climate and to similar risks. But some sectors are more sensitive and some groups in society more vulnerable to the risks posed by climate change than others. Yet all societies need to enhance their adaptive capacity to face both present and future climate change outside their experienced coping range. The challenges of climate change for development are in the present. Observed climate change, present-day climate variability and future expectations of change are changing the course of development strategies - development agencies and governments are now planning for this adaptation challenge. The primary challenge, therefore, posed at both the scale of local natural resource management and at the scale of international agreements and actions, is to promote adaptive capacity in the context of competing sustainable development objectives.