Advances in Climate Change Science at the United Nations Climate Change Negotiations

After almost two decades of active implication in the United Nations (UN) climate change regime, the European Union’s (EU) engagement in this domain of global environmental politics has become widely considered as emblematic of its participation in global multilateral governance generally.2 In this time span, the internal and external parameters for EU activities in this domain have considerably evolved. The science of climate change, reflected in successive reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has become ever more compelling, transforming the issue into a priority foreign policy topic (IPCC, 2007). At the same time, the global politics of climate change as well as the governance structures within and beyond the UN climate regime have undergone significant transformations. Not in the least, the EU itself has become a foreign policy actor in its own right, not only driven by several internal treaty reforms, but also by recurring attempts at finding its place in the evolving regime context. One parameter that has remained a constant throughout all this time, however, is the Union’s desire to ‘play a leading role in promoting concerted and effective action at global level’, formulated by the European Council in Dublin in June 1990 (European Council 1990: Annex II – ‘The environmental imperative’). This leadership aspiration, paired with a commitment to searching for multilateral solutions to the problem of climate change, has been reinvigorated at different moments in the evolution of the climate regime on the basis of both norms and interests shared among EU Member States (van Schaik and Schunz, 2012).

A Culture of Neglect: Climate Discourse and Disabled People

Despite overwhelming consensus among scientists about the reality of anthropogenic climate change (Bray, 2010; Oreskes, 2004), there remains significant reluctance on the part of citizens and politicians to take the action needed to address it. This resistance has been repeatedly identified in social research (Leiserowitz & Maibach, 2010; Leviston, Leitch, Greenhill, Leonard, & Walker, 2011; Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006; McCright & Dunlap, 2011; Reser, Bradley, Glendon, Ellul, & Callaghan, 2012) and is mirrored by the lack of progress made by salient political summits (Rogelj et al., 2010). Perhaps as a response to this, scholarly journals and articles that are focused on climate change are growing. Natural scientists tell us that we know what needs to be done to avert dangerous climate change (IPCC, 2014), and economists tell us that delaying action in the short term will lead to much greater costs in the long term (Stern, 2007). Understanding public responses to climate change and developing solutions to catalyse action is a critical challenge for the social sciences, and we propose that the development and elaboration of a social psychology of climate change would be a cornerstone of such an approach. We do not make the claim that social psychology has all the answers but rather that the theories, models and research methods of social psychology can provide a powerful arsenal to complement the approaches of other disciplines. Researchers have already begun to apply social psychological theory and methods to the issue of climate change, and we highlight in the following sections examples of the insights that have flowed from this. We cannot assume, though, that our theories and findings will automatically generalise to the climate change context. As Moser (2010) has noted, there are unique dimensions to climate change that make it distinct from other environmental, risk and health issues: The causes of climate change are invisible to humans, the impacts are distal and it is complex and riddled with uncertainties. Modern urban humans are to some extent insulated from their physical environment, and the lags between the climate and social systems make it difficult for people to understand their role in influencing climate. These factors suggest the importance of developing a social psychology of climate change, empirically testing, integrating and refining existing theories and models to develop new frameworks. The notion that psychology can play a role in understanding and addressing climate change is not a new one. The American Psychological Association's Task Force on the interface between psychology and global climate change comprehensively detailed the ways in which psychological research can help to understand people's perceptions of the risks of climate change, the contribution of human behaviour to climate change, the psychosocial impacts of climate change, the ways in which people can adapt and cope with climate change and the psychological barriers that could limit climate change action (Swim et al., 2009, 2011). It is also not a new idea that social psychology can play an important role in understanding and addressing environmental problems and solutions (Clayton & Brook, 2005). Social psychology, specifically, has a long tradition of theory and research that is relevant to addressing key climate change questions. Attitudes, social cognition, persuasion and attitude change, social influence, and intragroup and intergroup behaviour, for instance, are fundamental foci for social psychology and have direct relevance for understanding the human and social dimensions of climate change. The time is ripe to understand the range of research that has been developing in social psychology on attitudes, beliefs and actions, to build upon these insights, and integrate them with knowledge from other sciences to develop models and theories indigenous to the climate change context. In the following section, we provide a brief overview of recent social psychological research that addresses three broad themes relevant to understanding and responding to climate change. These themes are as follows: (i) social psychological influences on climate change attitudes and beliefs; (ii) facilitators and barriers to climate change action; and (iii) changing climate change attitudes and behaviour. Although there is some overlap in these themes, as an organising principle they intuitively map on to key questions that arise in relation to climate change. Our aim is to highlight recent examples of social psychological research that provide interesting and important insights in relation to these themes. Swim, Markowitz, and Bloodhart (2012) have noted that much of the social psychological research on climate change has emerged since 2006; we focus in on the most recent of this research that has been published since 2010. We also outline how the studies in the special issue relate to these themes. We recognise that these are not the only areas where social psychological research and theory can make important contributions but they nevertheless relate to key questions that need to be addressed. We conclude the introduction by proposing considerations that social psychologists could take into account in their future research on climate change. A major focus in the climate change literature and the media more broadly has been on describing climate change attitudes and beliefs. In many developed nations, questions about beliefs and attitudes related to climate change have become a standard component of political polling (e.g. Gallup polls and Lowy Institute polls), and there are comprehensive national and cross-national surveys that address this topic. Examples include US research by the Yale Climate Change Communication project (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Smith, 2010), national surveys conducted in Australia (Leviston et al., 2011; Reser et al., 2012), and the U.K. (Pidgeon, 2012) and the Eurobarometer research conducted in Europe (The European Opinion Research Group, 2002). As the study of attitudes—their conceptualization, measurement, formation, function and relationship with behaviour—has been a cornerstone of social psychological research, social psychology can make important contributions to these assessments. Note that although social psychological theories usually distinguish between attitudes and beliefs, these terms are often used interchangeably in the climate change research domain, and for the sake of simplicity, we will usually use attitudes to encompass both attitudes and beliefs. Recent reviews of the attitude literature from 1996 to 2009 highlight significant trends and directions in this area of research (Ajzen, 2001; Bohner & Dickel, 2011; Crano & Prislin, 2006). These trends include the role of attitude strength and attitude ambivalence, the distinction between implicit and explicit attitudes, the recognition that attitudes have cognitive and affective underpinnings, and the influence of bodily and external physical cues on attitudes. Recent social psychological research on climate change particularly provides examples of the influence of bodily and external cues and the distinction between cognitive and affective aspects of attitudes, and three of the papers in the special issue address the latter issue. The work on internal bodily and external physical cues is a growing research area with a special issue of the European Journal of Social Psychology devoted to the concept of embodied cognition (Schubert & Semin, 2009). As the distal nature of climate change and the relative insulation of humans from their physical environment are thought to be key barriers to greater engagement with climate change (Moser, 2010), it is perhaps not surprising that this area of research has extended into the climate change domain. Cues that help to 'bring to life' the experience of global warming could help to overcome these psychological barriers. Risen and Critcher (2011) have shown that feelings of warmth increased beliefs in global warming and that this effect was mediated through greater ease in constructing more fluent mental images of hot outdoor images. Other studies have shown that people had greater concern about global warming and donated more money to a global warming charity when they thought that the temperature outside was warmer than usual (Li, Johnson, & Zaval, 2011), that embodied temperature influenced concern for global warming and willingness to volunteer for a global warming group (Lewandowski, Ciarocco, & Gately, 2012) and that priming heat-related cognitions resulted in greater belief in global warming and willingness to pay to reduce global warming (Joireman, Truelove, & Duell, 2010). Physical external cues, in this case the presence of bare trees in the laboratory, also increased belief in global warming (Guéguen, 2012). These studies illustrate how subtle cues can influence climate change attitudes in the moment, although the longevity of these effects on attitudes has not been explored. Another important direction in attitude research that has relevance for climate change is the recognition that attitudes have affective as well as cognitive underpinnings. This is important when considering that the high levels of risk associated with climate change means that it could elicit strong emotional responses. Cognitive approaches to understanding attitudes (e.g. expectancy-value models) have been at the forefront of how we understand attitude formation (Ajzen, 2001). From this perspective, attitudes are the outcome of a cognitive process of evaluating beliefs about the attitude object; for example, a person who has positive beliefs about a climate change policy is likely to hold favourable attitudes to that policy. Consistent with the importance of cognitive, rational processes, Tobler, Visschers, and Siegrist (2012) have shown that perceived costs and benefits of climate change policies were significant predictors of support for these policies and, in most cases, were stronger predictors of behavioural willingness and policy support than other variables (e.g. demographics, climate change concern and climate change scepticism). But there is also evidence for the affective basis of attitudes and even for the primacy of affective aspects of attitudes (Verplanken, Jofstee, & Janssen, 1998; Zajonc, 1984). Recent reviews of the attitude literature suggest that, rather than attitudes being determined by one or the other, affect and cognition are both likely to be important for the formation of attitudes (Ajzen, 2001; Crano & Prislin, 2006). For example, whether affective or cognitive aspects of attitude objects are accessed more readily depends on whether the attitude object itself is more affectively or cognitively based (Giner-Sorolla, 2004). Three articles in the current issue pick up on the cognitive and affective aspects of climate change attitudes and perceptions. Although it seems intuitively likely that having greater knowledge about climate change should be related to climate change attitudes, findings in relation to knowledge have been mixed. Some research has shown that knowing more about the causes and consequences of climate change is associated with greater climate change risk judgments (Sunblad, Biel, & Gärling, 2009), whereas other studies have shown no effects or have suggested the possibility that having more knowledge could even be negatively related to climate change beliefs for those with a politically conservative orientation (Malka, Krosnick, & Langer, 2009; McCright & Dunlap, 2011). Yet, Guy, Kashima, Walker, and O'Neill (this issue) point out that knowledge is usually measured with proxy measures such as scientific literacy or self-reported climate change knowledge rather than objective knowledge of climate change, and therefore, it is premature to dismiss the positive relationship between knowledge and attitudes. Their study used an objective measure of climate change knowledge and shows that people who are more knowledgeable have greater belief that climate change is happening, and, moreover, knowledge attenuates the negative relationship between ideology (i.e. individualism) and climate change attitudes. Van der Linden (this issue) specifically addresses how affect and cognition relate to climate change perceptions. The study investigates the relationship between personal experiences of extreme weather events, affect relating to climate change, and climate change risk perceptions. The results of the structural equation modelling of a national British sample provides support for a dual-process model whereby cognitive appraisals activate risk perceptions, and risk and affect mutually reinforce each other in a feedback loop. The paper by Leviston, Price, and Bishop (this issue) explores the role of affect in climate change responses somewhat differently in that it looks at the images people bring to mind when they think about climate change and assesses the affect associated with these images. The research explores whether the types of images that people associate with climate change might be a way of psychologically and affectively engaging or distancing themselves from climate change. It is not enough that people endorse attitudes that are in tune with scientific consensus on climate change; these attitudes need to translate into positive action, whether that is individual private-sphere behaviours such as 'green' consumerism, public-sphere non-activist behaviour such as voting for political parties with environmentally responsible policies or collective environmental activism that seeks to influence decision-makers (Stern, 2000). These types of distinctions are important as the different classes of behaviour might have quite different facilitators and barriers (Stern, 2000). Another important distinction when considering climate-change-related behaviour is the extent to which it is habitual and automatic versus reasoned and deliberative (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Automaticity of environmentally harmful behaviour poses a serious barrier, whereas automaticity of environmentally protective behaviour makes future behaviour of this type more likely (Van Lange & Joireman, 2008). Yet another potentially important consideration is the goals associated with behaviours (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). Behaviours can be performed for a range of reasons, and individuals' perception of their own motives could have implications for their future actions. As an example, energy conservation behaviours could be performed primarily to reduce carbon emissions or to save money; the issue with engaging in environmentally protective behaviours for non-environmental reasons is that it could undermine the development of an environmentalist identity (van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013) and reduce the likelihood of behavioural spillover (Thøgersen & Crompton, 2009). A range of social psychological theories outline the mechanisms that motivate people to take action, and these have had great reach both inside and outside of social psychology. These theories include (but are not limited to) theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and perspectives that foreground the role of norms (e.g. norm focus theory; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990) and the social identity perspective (see Hornsey, 2008 for a recent review). The theory of planned behaviour has been used to examine determinants of a range of private-sphere environmental behaviours including employees' energy-saving behaviours (Greaves, Zibarras, & Stride, 2013; Zhang, Wang, & Zhou, 2014), private landholders' carbon sequestration and trading (Thompson & Hansen, 2013), renewable energy use (Alam et al., 2014) and opposition to wind farms (Read, Brown, Thorsteinsson, Morgan, & Price, 2013). Similarly, research drawing on self-determination theory has identified that experiencing more autonomous, self-determined motivation or perceiving that the government is more autonomy supportive is related to public-sphere and private-sphere environmental behaviours (De Groot & Steg, 2010; Lavergne, Sharp, Pelletier, & Holtby, 2010). Perhaps one of the most important contributions of social psychology to understanding human behaviour has been its theorisation of the influence of social norms (e.g. Cialdini et al., 1990). From a social identity perspective, the social groups to which we belong provide guidelines for appropriate behaviour through the internalisation of group norms (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hornsey, 2008). We only need to consider the powerful relationship between political party identification and climate change responses to see evidence of this process (Dunlap & McCright, 2008; Fielding, Head, Laffan, Western, & Hoegh-Guldberg, 2012). According to the social identity perspective, group norms are more likely to guide environmental behaviour when the social identity is more central and salient (Fielding, Terry, Masser, & Hogg, 2008; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). Furthermore, in salient intergroup contexts, in-group members tend to polarise away from out-group members, and their environmental intentions and behaviour will become more in-group normative (Ferguson, & 2011; & 2012). and (this issue) our understanding of how social identity and associated in-group norms influences climate-change-related behaviour. on social identity to distinguish between dimensions of group identification and whether different dimensions are more likely to guide behaviour. that extent to which group identity is important to the and rather than among group the relationship between group norms and when those behaviours are high Although much of the research to has focused on understanding and private-sphere environmental and (van & have extended their model of with collective to understand responses to climate change (Van & 2008). on a perspective & Swim, 2011), they propose and provide evidence for for people to with the climate and In the case of climate change, is a likely to be by and to the extent that they they be more likely to take action to reduce their can also be through that to their beliefs about whether group action will be in with climate change. and (this issue) this research by determinants of intentions to in collective climate emotional specifically on and as central and social norms into the Their findings that the perceived norm intentions to take part in a climate perceptions of and group In the section, we a brief overview of theories that could help to understand climate-change-related and these approaches suggest variables to to effect change. For example, research has shown the of to influence environmentally related behaviour et al., 2013; et al., 2010; Cialdini, & 2008; Cialdini, & 2008; & 2013; et al., 2012). In this section, we focus on research that addresses key that might be when to influence climate-change-related attitudes, beliefs and actions. important direction in research has been the of how to climate change to positive in climate change attitudes and beliefs. From a social psychological perspective, one of the of is the role of attitudes in & Dickel, 2011). A of the literature to a effect of attitudes on for versus et al., 2009), and there is evidence that this is more likely when people hold strong attitudes & 2007). This that people's attitudes will influence how they to to change climate-change-related attitudes and beliefs, and research is broadly with this. greater to on climate change with their own & and are more likely to climate when it to their beliefs & 2011; & 2013). In response to this, some have climate to be more when they with the For example, with greater had greater intentions when with that behaviour as the American way of & 2010), and climate greater intentions when with that the positive effects of climate change on the development of new Hornsey, & 2012). the of more we know from the work of and that people are risk and that risk in ways that highlight the of can be more than that focus on In the of climate change where is a of the and (2011) have shown that climate change that the the but the possibility of stronger intentions to and (this issue) on the model of & 2013) to provide a for climate change In they with one of policies that in renewable energy or limit The with the policies was when the with the policy. there was more with a policy of in renewable energy an when it was in terms of whereas greater was for a policy of emissions a when it was as also that the focus of their responses to the Another key issue that be is the possibility of to climate change and the risks to human and from climate change, of and are central to the of climate change. the effects of in relation to health behaviour & & 2000) provide evidence that elicit greater attitude and behaviour change but only when the is by of responses propose that people that response are and they have the to out the they will in behaviours to the there is this in to the such as or The for to climate change is in a study by and greater of climate change among with stronger beliefs who had been with about climate change, whereas this not on more Research has also shown that of to from climate change, particularly can be made more take the perspective of the by climate change (Swim & in to climate change also when social are & 1999). For example, when were to evidence of energy use by their own they were more likely to climate change to causes than when the was about 2013). Furthermore, this greater to causes was negatively associated with climate change concern and support for climate change that help reduce identity can greater engagement with climate change. on the and (2010) that a to reduce the of of climate change and personal with climate change and environmental behaviour. Although can help reduce to climate change, and (this issue) that the for to environmental problems can undermine individuals' willingness to take environmental as progress that can to future environmental and human health problems can reduce the likelihood of engaging in environmentally behaviour. The is perceptions of that a of in an as the idea of scientific progress our the need to through individual actions. The from this research is that it is important not to scientific of the major barriers that has been identified in relation to action to address climate change is the distal nature of the et al., major consequences will in the future and are perceived as more likely to affect other those who are already most This of climate change that that reduce the between and the future or between the and other humans help to overcome this In support of this, that focus on environmental consequences of climate change help climate change engagement & 2013), and to take the perspective of a future human experiencing environmental problems environmental engagement & 2013). The research of and (this issue) to whether our human identity can influence willingness to take environmental Consistent with research, they that are related to greater willingness to in environmental is though, is that priming people who have to think about to have high related to potentially it an intergroup context. This provides evidence of the of about climate change and the need to understand the Social psychology can also point to some and to greater willingness to in to address climate change. and (this issue) that that whether have an versus an can make a to how many behaviours they consider engaging In that had out behaviours they would not consider resulted in being to in more behaviours than an where people consider what they would consider from a In this introduction to the special we highlight areas where social psychological research has important insights to understanding climate change attitudes, beliefs and what influences these and how they can be We used recent social psychological research and the papers from this current issue to illustrate key The strength of a social psychological of climate change is that it can help us to understand the of responses to climate change, for example, how attitudes can be influenced by both affect and cognition, how attitudes and beliefs can responses to climate change and people to climate change with and It can also provide and to the of climate change It is to see the and of social psychological research that addresses important questions related to climate change, although this has been a recent (Swim et al., 2012). we are to to make important contributions to this area of research, though, we propose that social psychologists should consider the following in their future We noted that there are a range of that can take to address climate change, from private-sphere behaviours to non-activist public-sphere behaviours to environmental activism (Stern, 2000). Although all of these approaches can some have greater than & 2009). have greater to influence and and to effect Despite this, social psychological research often investigates private-sphere actions. As a we can our contribution to climate change research by our focus to individual behaviours and public-sphere responses to climate change & 2008). As a we are to what is about climate change. The groups we belong to and the social we can be powerful influences on our attitudes, beliefs and the effect of political identification on climate change attitudes is a of this. area where these have relevance is in the of national and climate change As an example, and (2012) on social identity to the in that when the of individual and other become a identity can that will lead to greater likelihood of The consideration of intergroup and how these or positive responses to climate change (e.g. climate change and introduction of climate change is an area that could provide important A critical distinction made in relation to climate change is between and According to the on Climate Change the to human to reduce the impacts of climate change, whereas the latter to that can be made to human or systems that can help to the or the that would from or climate change and are even the measures will not some of climate change, and is needed to with this (IPCC, Yet the issue of psychological has been in climate change & Swim, 2011). This is for at (i) as noted some of climate change is research on is and (ii) a lack of understanding of could in that to or reduce to climate change that impacts or of other or social & social psychological research is to be a serious to the climate change research greater needs to be focused on of The need to to the distinction between and to the need for social psychologists to work with other disciplines. et we social psychologists to become with the and research of other relevant that address climate change to the relevance and reach of social psychological research in this that solutions to climate change cannot be developed by one the issue systems including and A is and social psychology can make a significant contribution by methods and theories that help social and cognitive In we in this introduction to the special issue to foreground social psychological theories and findings relevant to key climate change questions. Although social psychology can a of and the social psychology of climate change is and more needs to be done we have a of and theories that are to climate change. we this, the of social psychology is likely to be at the of climate We that the special issue can help the progress that has been made and catalyse the development of an indigenous social psychology of climate change. We social psychologists to this that we can be part of the to one of the and environmental of our

Water sprays from an open fire hydrant in Brooklyn, New York, in the midst of a July 2010 heat wave that affected much of the eastern United States.In 2007 the New York City Department of Environmental Protection first teamed up with Alianza Dominicana, a Washington Heights community organization, to educate city residents about the appropriate use of fire hydrants and other ways

Uncertainty in climate models.

ABSTRACTThe United Nations’ declaration on climate change education in December 2014 has sparked a renewal of policies and programs initiated during the ‘Decade of Education for Sustainable Development’ (DESD, 2005–2014), aimed at promoting awareness, understanding, and civic action for environmental sustainability within learning communities all around the world. We present findings from a dialogic, multimodal, and literacies-based educational project designed to provide secondary students (N = 141) from four countries with the resources to read about and discuss evidence regarding climate change from seminal studies with peers and a core group of scientists (N = 7). Post-program interviews revealed a significant increase in language use related to evidence-based reasoning. Students also demonstrated an increased propensity to recycle. These findings support the hypothesis that providing opportunities for students to read and discuss seminal scientific sources incites positive changes in beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors related to climate change and climate science, and understandings of the nature of scientific evidence and argumentation.

Hi Reddit, Last year, I retired from Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (the only chemist on the faculty!), where I founded and directed the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/CIERP) for 22 years. I supervised many masters’ and doctoral students during that time, including the co-chair of the Paris climate negotiations. I continue to work on climate science and policy, energy, water, forests and oceans to develop scientifically valid and effective strategies and policies. I served as a lead author on five IPCC reports over a 19-year period. Until recently I served as Chief Scientist at Earthwatch Institute (http://earthwatch.org/) and continue to serve as the Chair of their Science Committee. I also serve on the board of directors of Woods Hole Research Center (http://whrc.org/), ranked as the most influential climate think tank for the past two years, and several additional environmental science and consensus building organizations. The science of climate change is complex, and the politics are more so. I have always found the interaction between the two to be fascinating, and remember being shocked as a young scientist that science did not always determine the political outcome of a policy process. I want to share with you the role of science in the outcome of the Paris climate negotiation that just ended on December 11th, 2015. A bit of history: back in the 1980s, a group of scientists convinced some governments that based on their research, the release of heat trapping gases into the atmosphere would heat the earth to a point where there could be uncontrollable and irreversible warming with devastating consequences for all life, including humans. This science prompted two actions. The first was to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific input to governments on the science, impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation of climate change. The second was to negotiate an international treaty, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed by 154 nations in 1992. The Paris negotiations were the 21st meeting of the parties to the original treaty, and its actions both utilized and ignored science in the final outcome. I invite you to join me in a discussion about how science and policy came together and diverged over issues like the 2oC global temperature goal during the recent Paris talks. I’ll be back at 1 pm EST (10 AM PST, 6 pm UTC) to answer your questions, ask me anything! EDIT: We are live! EDIT IN CLOSING: Thank you all for your engagement, and your thoughtful questions. It has been very gratifying to hear your concerns. Let me close with one final thought. So many actions to address climate change have many additional benefits for providing sustainable energy to all and lift people out of poverty. There would be far less damage to the planet and our health if we can make the shift away form fossil fuels. As I said earlier, we also need to do Restorative Development to mobilize the biosphere so that we improve our forests and land quality every time we use them instead of constantly degrading them. Perhaps, you will enjoy one of my favorite cartoons as a closing. http://imgur.com/up6yu

This article invites the reader on a journey through the legal arguments that would confirm the application of the United Nations (UN) climate change regime to belligerent occupations. Although the regime is silent on this issue, its application should not be limited to peacetime due to the seriousness of global climate change and its adverse effects on the environment and living entities. A harmonious interpretation and application of the UN climate change regime and the law of occupation would allow Occupying Powers to ensure the safety and well-being of the civilian population and contribute to the protection of the Earth's climate system.

The world is watching expectantly as the clock winds down towards the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15; http://en.cop15.dk/) to be held 7–18 December 2009 in Copenhagen. While most are now convinced of the need for a strong and concerted response to the climate challenge, the exact nature and extent of that response remains uncertain. There is evidence (Barnett 2009) that current estimates of emissions now exceed all but the most extreme emission scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). If that increase in emissions persists then temperature increases of 4 °C by 2060 have been predicted (Barnett 2009). An inevitable result of the potential for such extreme climate change is to advance the need for multiple adaptation strategies to decision making about, for example, infrastructure, urban planning and forest management. These strategies need to do more than incremental adaptation (Barnett 2009); instead transformative approaches may be required to adapt. The timing of the response is also proving to be a critical determining factor in the effectiveness of global actions. Using a simple conceptual model of emissions, Vaughan and co-workers (Vaughan et al 2009) show that avoiding dangerous climate change is more effective if such action begins early. Early action is also more effective than acting more aggressively later (Vaughan et al 2009).

One of the universal responses to tackling global climate change is teaching climate change concepts at all levels of formal education. This response requires, among other things, teachers who are fully literate about climate change science, so that they can explain the concepts underlying the causes, impacts and solutions of climate change as accurately as possible to learners. The main intention of this study was to understand high school Geography teachers’ levels of knowledge about climate change science. A 15-item, criterion-referenced, multiple-choice Climate Change Literacy Questionnaire with a reliability coefficient of 0.74 using the Guttman’s spit-half test was administered to 194 high school Geography teachers in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Data collected were analysed with the Pearson’s Chi-square test and One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The results showed that the majority of the participants demonstrated significantly high literacy levels in climate science, with their literacy levels higher in climate processes and causes of climate change than climate change impacts and solutions. Misconceptions were found in all three categories of climate change science as represented in the survey instrument. These findings suggest that teacher educators and policymakers should improve professional development programmes and support interventions in teacher knowledge and understanding of climate change concepts, so as to enhance climate change education in schools.Keywords: climate change education; climate change misconceptions; climate change science literacy; Geography teachers; survey research

From fatal heat waves and cruel droughts to devastating floods and fast depleting water tables, climate change is the greatest destructor in the current time creating a threat to all living organisms including human being. Teachers being the agents of social change have an important role to play in moulding the behaviour of children to cope with the climate change stress. The present study was carried out with 462 (222 pre-service and 240 in-service) elementary school teachers taking a Likert type five point attitude scale with 30 items having six dimensions viz., science of climate change, causes of climate change, impacts of climate change, mitigation, national initiatives and policies and politics of climate change.
 From the study, it was noted that though both pre-service and in-service teachers had favourable attitude towards climate change issues, pre-service teachers had higher level of concern than in-service teachers as reflected from their attitude scores. Dimension wise pre-service and in-service teachers had favourable attitude towards science of climate change, causes of climate change, impacts of climate change and mitigation, and negative attitude towards national initiatives and policies and politics of climate change. Urban teachers were more favourable than rural teachers in first four dimensions studied.
 However, among in-service teachers rural teachers were more concerned on issues such as impacts of climate change and causes of climate change than on science of climate change, mitigation, national initiatives, policies and politics of climate change. Among pre-service teachers, there was no significant difference in the attitude scores between science and arts teachers, and male and female teachers. However, urban teachers had more favourable attitude than rural teachers. Among in-service teachers, there was significant difference in the attitude scores as far as subject (science/arts) and residence (urban/rural) are concerned. Rural in-service teachers had more favourable attitude than urban teachers.
 The correlation between knowledge and attitude showed a positive relationship which reflected that with increase in knowledge there was increase in concern. The relationship between age and attitude showed that with increase in teacher’s age concern for climate change increased.

The scientific consensus on climate change is strong, and evidence points to the need to take action to drastically reduce emissions of greenhouses gases. At the Paris summit in 2015, 195 world leaders set a clear goal to limit climate change. Yet the means to achieve this goal remain firmly at the level of the nation-state, with each country assuming responsibility for its own national plan. Thus national administrations, run by elected politicians, have a crucial role to play. It is the role of politicians to put in place the strategies, policies and incentives necessary to facilitate emissions reductions. How does this commitment at the level of the nation-state fit with a politician’s mandate as a democratically elected representative? What role do national politicians think they can and should play in responding to climate change? The study explores these questions empirically, seeking to understand how Members of the UK Parliament (MPs) understand climate change and its implications for political and social life, and their deliberations about whether or how to act on the issue. The work is informed by an interdisciplinary literature including science and technology studies, sociology, political science and environmental governance. It uses a mixed method approach, comprising corpus analysis of political speech, a focus group with climate advocates, and two sets of qualitative interviews with MPs. The study finds that, whilst politicians understand, to varying degrees, the need for action on climate change, it is not straightforward for them to make a case for action. There are three main reasons for this. First, the literal and metaphorical scale of climate change in comparison to the procedures and preoccupations of daily politics. Second, politicians consider the climate issue in the context of their professional identity and the cultural norms of their workplace, and report that climate action does not ‘fit’ with these norms. Third, UK politicians feel very little pressure from their electors to act on climate change, and have to work to build a democratic case for climate action. The study offers recommendations for both research and practice. In terms of research, there is a need for a more fine-grained, contextual understanding of the interplay between global goals and national political systems. In terms of practice, politicians, working with other stakeholders, need support in order to articulate the scale and significance of the climate challenge, and craft responses which build democratic support for further action.

We explored how computer games developed as part of an innovative set of climate change education materials helped students learn and gain interest in global climate change (GCC) science by making it personally relevant and understandable. This research was conducted in a public school district in the southeastern United States. The curriculum, Climate Change Narrative Game Education (CHANGE), used a local, place-based approach using scientific data gathered from the Gulf of Mexico coast and incorporated (a) computer games, (b) a scientifically web-based science fiction novel about future Gulf coast residents, and (c) hands-on laboratory activities. This paper focuses on how the computer games affected students’ learning, validity of their beliefs about GCC, and understanding of the effects of GCC on the region’s sea level and storms. The data collected included students’ exam scores, and surveys about student perceptions of climate change science and perceptions of the materials. On exam questions related to GCC science, students who participated in the CHANGE curriculum scored significantly higher than their peers who did not. Also, their beliefs about GCC increased in validity. The nature and design of the computer games had a strong impact on students’ understanding of sea level rise and storms.

Due to climatic change and variability, achieving sustainability in agricultural development with emphasis on satisfying basic human needs and improving people’s standard of living through enhancing food security and reducing poverty has been a challenge in Southern Africa. This discussion is a synthesis of counter productive developmental disparities in agricultural production in poor communities, focusing on issues of research, science and technology, and how these may influence agricultural development in the context of climate change. This gives possible insight on research, science and technological innovations that can be explored as strategies for agricultural development tailored made for poor communities, focusing particularly on Southern Africa. Climate change and variability is an area in which considerable uncertainty remains, especially in developing countries with implications suggesting that the future holds many types of disruption in poor communities, but no clear trends have yet been identified, whereas observations of the impact of climate change on agricultural productivity in the world's poorest people are often alarmist. Research, science and technology plays a key role in economic growth, social development, cultural enrichment and democratic empowerment. It is assumed that through the ‘gender lens’ an understanding of engendered research, science and technology through examination of specific gender roles, activities, responsibilities, opportunities and constraints in agricultural production which compromise the achievement of greater equality between women and men within their spheres of interaction in agricultural production will address the fundamental issue of climate change and agricultural productivity. Gender is a socio-economic variable which can be used to analyze vulnerability and adaptive capacity of people against climate change and variability in local communities in Southern Africa. Dealing with the inevitable impact of climate change is now high on the agricultural development agenda in most developing countries. Therefore, engaging in appropriate research, climate change science and agricultural technologies targeted at poor rural people through planning adaptation and mitigation efforts can reduce the risks of climate change while accelerating progress towards food security and reducing poverty. In this discussion, it is noted that apart from appropriate research, climate change sciences and technology as some of the strategic steps that can be adopted for future viable agricultural production in the context of climate change, it may also include and not limited to the following: promotion of gender equality and equity in agricultural production in terms of resource allocation, training and gender sensitive policies. This gives room for innovative prospects for the agricultural systems of the future, supplemented by a critical look at all the major mitigation and adaptation attempts under way and what this means for research, science and technology for agricultural development. Developing countries should come up with their own resources to develop the capacity to adapt to environmental change in order to improve agricultural productivity. There is need for constant review of adaptation strategies through research, climate change science and agricultural technologies because the speed and intensity of climate change is outpacing the speed of autonomous adaptations and is threatening to overwhelm the ability of poor rural people to cope. On the other hand developing countries can use climate change policies to leverage human capacity, investment, and climate change and agricultural technology to capture large-scale pro poor mitigation opportunities, while simultaneously augmenting their agricultural development goals. It is vital that we come up with appropriate research, understand climate change science and agricultural technology that underlie the global climate talks, in order to work with poor communities to find concrete alternatives in response to the issues surrounding the climate , while heeding the demands of sustainable agricultural development.

Climate change: the new bioterrorism