Fly less to convey urgency.

The term public engagement (PE) refers to processes that provide a distinct role for citizens or stakeholder groups in policymaking. Such engagement is distinctive because it aims to create opportunities for mutual learning among policymakers, scientists, stakeholders, and members of the public. In so doing, PE involves a particular type of voice in public debate and policymaking that is different from more established discourses, such as those expressed through official policymaking channels, scientific institutions, civil society activists, or the public media. By the early 1970s, PE had emerged in the context of an overall democratization movement in Western societies through such innovations as the “citizen jury” in the United States and “planning cells” in Germany. Today, it is often more pragmatically motivated, such as in the European Commission, where PE is seen as a tool for responsible research and innovation that helps to anticipate and assess potential implications and societal expectations of research and innovation, as well as to design more inclusive and sustainable research policies. The first global PE processes in history were created to incorporate citizen voices into United Nations (UN) conventions on biodiversity and climate change. Building on theories of deliberative democracy and tested PE practices, a new World Wide Views process was developed to provide informed and considered input from ordinary citizens to the 2009 UN climate summit. This and subsequent World Wide Views (WWViews) deliberations have demonstrated that PE may potentially open up policy discourses that are constricted and obfuscated by organized interests. A telling example is provided by the World Wide Views on Climate and Energy deliberation held on June 5, 2015, where nearly 10,000 ordinary citizens gathered in 76 countries to consider and express their views on the issues to be addressed at the UN climate summit in Paris later that year. In a noteworthy departure from prevailing media and policy discourses, two-thirds of the participating citizens saw measures to fight climate change as “mostly an opportunity to improve our quality of life,” while only a quarter saw them as “mostly a threat to our quality of life,” a result that was consistent across high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Recent research on PE has indicated that when effectively implemented, such processes can increase the legitimacy, quality, and capacity of decision-making. Earlier aspirations for broader impacts, such as the democratization of policymaking at all levels, are now less prominent but arguably indispensable for achieving both immediate and longer-range goals. The relatively new concept of a deliberative system captures this complexity by moving beyond the narrow focus on single PE events encountered in much research to date, recognizing that single events rarely affect the course of policymaking. The evolving prospects for PE in biodiversity and climate change policy, therefore, can be seen as requiring ongoing improvements in the capacities of the deliberative system.

Sharon Long, a plant scientists who advised Barack Obama during his presidential election campaign, talks about green biotechnology and the role of scientists in political decision‐making.

Many countries pledged to take necessary measures and limit the global temperature rise to 2&#x2009;&#x00B0;C, or better yet, 1.5&#x2009;&#x00B0;C, at the United Nations (UN) climate summit in Paris. However, according to a survey from <i>Nature</i>, many scientists think global temperatures may reach a disastrous 3&#x2009;&#x00B0;C above preindustrial levels, and around 60&#x0025; of experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expect average global temperatures to reach that point by the end of the century if governments do not markedly slow the pace of global warming <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">[1]</xref>. That dynamic played out again during the 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26), in Glasgow, United Kingdom, in November 2021. The prime minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, declared that 2&#x2009;&#x00B0;C of temperature rise would be a &#x201C;death sentence&#x201D; for island countries. On 13 November 2021, COP26 concluded with nearly 200 countries agreeing to the Glasgow Climate Pact, which aims to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5&#x2009;&#x00B0;C and finalize the outstanding elements of the Paris Agreement.

Rethinking zero deforestation beyond 2020 to more equitably and effectively conserve tropical forests

This article analyses the negotiations on the future of the international climate regime at the United Nations Climate Summit in Copenhagen. It also discusses key issues in the ongoing business of implementing the Climate Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. The article lays out the main issues at stake in the negotiations, contrasts divergences in interests amongst negotiating parties, and summarises the results achieved in Copenhagen. The report discusses these results in detail and concludes with an outlook on how the challenges ahead could be overcome.

In September 2021 at a United Nations climate summit in New York, Xi Jinping announced that there would be no further Chinese coal-fired power plants along the Belt and Road Initiative, which stretches as far as South Africa. Instead, the Chinese operator of South Africa’s single largest Special Economic Zone proposal – in rural Makhado – and his local allies suggested that solar power could supply energy for the $10 billion project, including high-emissions industrial projects. This raised the question of whether firms engaged in mining, smelting, processing and other carbon-intensive activities would pick ‘low-hanging fruits’ within the renewable energy sector (instead of that power going into the grid for broader consumption). Their incentive is to do so, in order to safeguard the so-called Minerals-Energy Complex from Western climate sanctions – threatened, on grounds of high CO2-inputs to export products including steel, aluminium and petrochemicals. In spite of a 2022 United Nations Development Programme endorsement of the project, social and environmental resistance has intensified, but the introduction of solar power for high-emissions metal manufacturing presents a special challenge. Two techniques associated with ecological modernisation – natural capital accounting and the Social Cost of Carbon – may prove relevant to civil society critics of ‘extractivism’, in shifting the narrative further across space, time and scale.

The Paris Agreement is an important milestone in international climate policy and the associated negotiations of the United Nations Climate Summit under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is a supplementary mechanism—regarding carbon markets—to reduce greenhouse gases and achieve the UNFCCC's main objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. The 2021 United Nations Climate Summit in Glasgow (COP26) played a key role in the pursuit of this goal. Via an overview of Article 6 negotiations in past COP summits and a systematic review and qualitative meta‐synthesis of the literature leading up to COP26, I identify three arguments involving Articles 6.2, 6.4, and 6.8 behind the selected literature. I substantiate these arguments based on the meta‐evaluation of the existing literature and propose a three‐stage meta‐evaluation of the arguments on Article 6 (carbon markets) of the Paris Agreement in the context of COP26 to ascertain if the negotiations were successful in leading to requisite agreements on Article 6. I conclude that future qualitative research should focus on Articles 6.4 and 6.8 of the Paris Agreement and examine the outcomes of future climate debates to see how ideas will flow through the negotiations regarding these two articles to pursue the goal of the UNFCCC under the Paris Agreement.Related ArticlesJihyung Joo, Jihyung, Jouni Paavola, and James Van Alstine. 2023. “The Divergence of South Korea's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from the EU ETS: An Institutional Complementarity View.” Politics &amp; Policy 51(6): 1155–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12566.Nunes Silva, Carlos. 2012. “Policy and Evidence in a Partisan Age: The Great Disconnect—By Paul Gary Wyckoff.” Politics &amp; Policy 40(3): 541–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2012.00363.x.Robles, Pedro, and Daniel J. Mallinson. 2023. “Catching up with AI: Pushing toward a Cohesive Governance Framework.” Politics &amp; Policy 51(3): 355–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12529.

Governments, corporations and individuals all need to take immediate action to help change the global economy toward a circular economy. A circular economy which uses fewer resources and based on renewable clean technologies to help limit global warming to 1.5 °C. The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report warned that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels would require current greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions to be cut in half by 2030. Yet actions by governments, corporations and individuals are lagging behind. Many countries are failing their obligations made under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Even the International Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency set a 50% reduction target of GHG emissions for global shipping by 2050, but this falls short of the IPCC target by 20 years. The United Nations climate summit in New York this week (September 2019) needs to send a strong wake up call to the entire world for us all to change. Change makers like Greta Thunberg has already done that. Individual actions to change consumer behaviour can play a major role to help reduce GHG emissions. Even reducing use of single-use plastics (a petroleum derivative) and incineration can help reduce GHG emissions. GHG emissions from plastics could reach 15% of the global carbon budget by 2050 if not curbed. In Europe, plastic production and incineration emits an estimated ~400 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Therefore, reducing single-use plastic use could curb GHG emissions.

Nature Climate Change 4, 858–859 (2014); published online 25 September 2014; corrected online 03 October 2014. In the United Nations Climate Summit in New York in September, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) primarily raised awareness, but it also raised the total that has been promised to it from the $1.083 billion I originally reported to $2.

What can the Glasgow Declaration on Forests bring to global emission reduction?

President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao have pledged to work together to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement falls short of fixed greenhouse gas reductions or providing a schedule, but the presidents stated their willingness to work together in preparation for next month’s United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen. In a joint statement in Beijing last week, they also announced a package of clean energy R&D initiatives and underscored the need to increase financial support for poor nations that are the most vulnerable to climate change. According to the agreement, the nations together will provide at least $150 million over five years to fund a jointly operated clean energy research center to be based in each country. They will also conduct collaborative research to encourage clean-coal technologies, electric vehicles, renewable energy, shale-gas exploration, and new energy-efficiency technologies. And they will create a program to encourage cooperation between U.S. and Chines...

Last month, millions took to the streets in climate rallies organized by some 1,500 organizations in 158 countries. Their message: that world leaders at the United Nations Climate Summit in New York must tackle the challenges of global warming head on. However, it is by no means clear that this will translate into firm political pledges (see Nature http://doi.org/v3c; 2014). For instance, 80,000 people demonstrated ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009. At the meeting, a political collusion between the United States and a group formed by Brazil, South Africa, India and China ended up sidelining the countries most in need of action against climate change (see A. P. Kythreotis Prog. Hum. Geog. 36, 457–474; 2012). When it comes to crucial issues of social justice and the economy, politicians should be guided by the people they are supposed to serve (see A. Petherick Nature Clim. Change 4, 81–83; 2014).

In September 2007 two Norwegian NGOs wrote a letter to leading Norwegian politicians urging them to establish a climate initiative for protecting rainforests. Two months later, at the United Nations climate summit in Bali, Norway committed to donate three billion NOK annually to prevent tropical deforestation, making Norway the leading global donor in what has become the REDD+ mechanism (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). This article provides a detailed analysis of the making of the rainforest initiative, placing particular emphasis on the knowledge base of the initiative, most notably a decisive letter. Close contact with policy makers in the process ensured legitimacy and credibility for the proposal. Important for the initiative’s rapid progression was that it came in the middle of the run-up to the negotiations of a cross-political climate settlement in the Norwegian Parliament. The rainforest initiative became one of the hottest proposals in the climate policy ‘bidding war’ between the government and the opposition. All these events must be seen against the background of 2007 being a year when public concern and media coverage about climate issues peaked. Politicians were under pressure to act, and the rainforest proposal’s perfect fit with the Norwegian climate mitigation main approach of pursuing large-scale cost-effective emission cutbacks abroad made it pass swiftly through the governmental machinery. In conclusion, the article suggests the metaphor of the perfect storm to explain how the NGOs exploited a situation which made the rainforest initiative an indispensable part of Norway’s climate policy.

A review of the hydrogen fuel path to emission reduction in the surface transport industry

The differential warming of land and ocean leads to many continental regions in the Northern Hemisphere warming at rates higher than the global mean temperature. Adaptation and conservation efforts will, therefore, benefit from understanding regional consequences of limiting the global mean temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, a limit agreed upon at the United Nations Climate Summit in Paris in December 2015. Here, we analyze climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) to determine the timing and magnitude of regional temperature and precipitation changes across the contiguous United States (US) for global warming of 1.5 and 2°C and highlight consensus and uncertainties in model projections and their implications for making decisions. The regional warming rates differ considerably across the contiguous US, but all regions are projected to reach 2°C about 10-20 years before the global mean temperature. Although there is uncertainty in the timing of exactly when the 1.5 and 2°C thresholds will be crossed regionally, over 80% of the models project at least 2°C warming by 2050 for all regions for the high emissions scenario. This threshold-based approach also highlights regional variations in the rate of warming across the US. The fastest warming region in the contiguous US is the Northeast, which is projected to warm by 3°C when global warming reaches 2°C. The signal-to-noise ratio calculations indicate that the regional warming estimates remain outside the envelope of uncertainty throughout the twenty-first century, making them potentially useful to planners. The regional precipitation projections for global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C are uncertain, but the eastern US is projected to experience wetter winters and the Great Plains and the Northwest US are projected to experience drier summers in the future. The impact of different scenarios on regional precipitation projections is negligible throughout the twenty-first century compared to uncertainties associated with internal variability and model diversity.