Insurance and the "Irrationalization" of Disaster Policy: A Political Crisis Theory for an Age of Climate Risk.

A “lifeline out of the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 crisis”? An ecofeminist critique of the European Green Deal

<i>How to Think about the Climate Crisis: A Philosophical Guide to Saner Ways of Living</i>, by Graham Parkes

Responsibility Incorporated

The terms “global warming,” “climate crisis,” “climate emergency,” and “climate justice” each draw attention to different aspects of climate change. Psychological theories of attitude formation suggest that people’s attitudes can be influenced by such variations in terminology. In a national experiment, we randomly assigned a national sample of 5,137 U.S. residents to “climate change,” “global warming,” “climate crisis,” “climate emergency,” or “climate justice” and examined their responses. Overall, “climate change” and “global warming” were rated as most familiar and most concerning, and “climate justice” the least, with ratings for “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” falling in between. Moreover, we find no evidence for “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” eliciting more perceived urgency than “climate change” or “global warming.” Rated willingness to support climate-friendly policies and eat less red meat were less affected by presented terms, but they were lowest for “climate justice.” Although effects of terms on rated familiarity, concern, and perceived urgency varied by political leaning, “climate justice” generally received the lowest ratings on these variables among Democrats, Republicans, and Independent/others. Auxiliary analyses found that when terms were unfamiliar, participants were generally less likely to express concern, urgency, policy support, or willingness to eat less red meat. We therefore recommend sticking with familiar terms, conclude that changing terminology is likely not the key solution for promoting climate action, and suggest alternative communication strategies.

The Negative Bidirectional Interaction Between Climate Change and the Prevalence and Care of Liver Disease: A Joint BSG, BASL, EASL, and AASLD Commentary

The implications of digital visual media for human–nature relationships

If there is a problem that has emerged as a global disaster along with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is climate change. This is why the discourse of “climate crisis” has been actively conducted from various angles in recent years. Based on these facts, this study focused on analyzing the use of words related to climate change and how the ideological tendencies pursued by media companies correlate with climate issues, especially the “climate crisis” reports that have been increasingly used recently. The results of the study are summarized as follows.&#x0D; First, based on data from BIGKinds, a news big data analysis service provided by the Korea Press Promotion Foundation, it was confirmed that relatively various language variations have been appearing in climate change-related terms over the past 30 years, such as “climate change,” “weather variation,” “abnormal climate,” “climate crisis,” “climate disaster,” and “extreme climate.” Second, in our society, the term “climate change” has been used more frequently since the 2000s instead of “weather change” over the climate issue, which is markedly different in nature from natural fluctuations in the past, and “climate change” has been the most frequently used to date.&#x0D; Third, “climate change” showed a sudden upward curve in contrast to other years by showing 15,455 times in 2009 and 26,945 times in 2021. It was confirmed that there is a close correlation between the climate change cause discourse of “global warming” in 2009 and the climate change response discourse of “greenhouse gas reduction” and “carbon neutrality” in 2021.&#x0D; Fourth, the second most frequent vocabulary after “climate change” is “climate crisis,” which has shown a total frequency of 33,827 over the past 30 years, and this phenomenon has appeared as a distinct trend, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.&#x0D; Fifth, media reports that focus on highlighting the “climate crisis” issue have been confirmed to have a clear correlation with the ideological tendencies of media companies, and in newspaper editorials as well as general articles, liberal media companies are more actively approaching the “climate crisis” issue than conservative media companies.

Global warming, melting of the permafrost, glaciers and sea ice, rising sea level as well as ocean warming and acidification have resulted in degradation of ecosystems and increased occurrences of extreme weather events which threaten the social and economic systems. The media and scholarly articles have interpreted these dire consequences of climate change as a climate crisis intimidating the survival of human and other inhabitants on Earth. This mini review aims to examine the concept of climate crisis and establish whether the current state of climate change fits the definition of climate crisis. There is generally a lack of consensus on what a climate crisis is and a plausible notion presents it as a state of climate change beyond the tipping points. This brings tipping points into determining whether we are in a climate crisis and this review finds that the only tipping point surpassed with high probability is that for melting permafrost, glaciers and sea ice. It is particularly challenging to locate the tipping points in a complex Earth system with high geographical, ecological and environmental variability. This review concludes that we are yet to be in a climate crisis but synergistic impacts of environmental degradation could usher in a climate crisis faster than we think. Keywords: Climate change; Crisis; Blobal warming; Melting; Ocean; Rainforest

Reviewed by: How God Acts: Creation, Redemption, and Special Divine Action Kenneth A. Reynhout (bio) How God Acts: Creation, Redemption, and Special Divine Action. By Denis Edwards. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. 224 pp. $27.00. The concern of the latest book by Denis Edwards, a Senior Lecturer in Systematic Theology at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia and the author of such books as The God of Evolution (Paulist, 1999), Jesus and the Cosmos (Wipf & Stock, 2004), and Breath of Life: A Theology of the Creator Spirit (Orbis, 2004) speaks clearly in its title. The God depicted in the Bible, professed in the creeds, and given witness to by the Church creates the universe, the earth, and all its creatures. God enters humanity in the incarnate Son, suffers and dies as a human being, raises Jesus from the dead, sends the Spirit, and establishes the church. God receives prayer for guidance, healing, and deliverance, whom believers hope will one day make all things new. This is not the detached, clockmaker god of deism. The God of Jesus Christ is the God who acts, and How God Acts addresses such a problematic. At least three challenges confront Edwards in his task. The first, which contributed to the popularity of deism, is the remarkable success of the natural sciences. A universe ruled by regular laws presumably possesses its own integrity that should in principle be fully describable by appeals to causal forces and rational principles. For some this implies a forced choice: either we admit that a divine agent is explanatorily superfluous and as such belief in God is irrational, or science should be able to detect and measure a God who intervenes as another causal force in the world, as say an “intelligent designer.” Dissatisfied with either option, interdisciplinary theologians have expended considerable energy over the past two decades trying to articulate a “noninterventionist” theory of divine action in dialogue with the natural sciences. The second challenge: divine agency can only be analogous to human agency, with a weak analogy at that. We act because of and through our limitations as finite creatures to deliberately change our circumstances as we perceive some need or lack. To claim God acts in the same way would imply that God is finite, so divine agency must be something other than human agency. Pressing this dissimilarity too hard could mean undermining the very picture of an active God upheld. Finally, the third and perhaps most difficult challenge for articulating a theory of divine action is that it screams for an answer to the problem of evil. If God acts in the world, then why not more often, or at least differently, so that creaturely suffering decreases, is even eliminated? Contemporary science puts an even finer point on this old problem, since an evolving universe evidently involves and may even [End Page 145] require cataclysm, suffering, and death. How can this possibly be the way that a good God creates? Edwards strides confidently into this thorny thicket, doing so with awareness and sensitivity. While he acknowledges we can never truly know how an infinite God acts and that the word “action” is clearly analogical, he still seeks to articulate characteristics of a noninterventionist theology of divine action that honors the integrity and freedom of the created world. Edwards affirms the relational and evolutionary character of the universe and the processes that encourage emerging complexity. He wants to understand this pattern of evolutionary emergence as the way God creates. However, he also acknowledges that the inherent costs of evolution—competition, predation, pain, and extinction—complicate his picture. Treatments of divine action often start by developing a general theory and then proceed to plot specific kinds of actions, with the resurrection typically considered as a hard case. Edwards takes a different approach: he begins with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, or what he collectively calls the “Christ-event,” and builds a theology of divine action from there. The picture that emerges is of an intimate, loving, and compassionate God who graciously and patiently invites our participation in the kingdom through the way of Jesus. The Christ-event is God’s paradigmatic creative action in the world, in the...

Climate concepts are crucial to understand the effects of human activity on the climate system scientifically, and to formulate and pursue policies to mitigate and adapt to these effects. Yet, scientists, policymakers, and activists often use different terms such as “global warming,” “climate change,” “climate crisis,” or “climate emergency.” This advanced review investigates which climate concept is most suitable when we pursue mitigation and adaptation goals in a scientifically informed manner. It first discusses how survey experiments and social science reviews on climate frames draw normative recommendations about which terms to use for public climate communication. It is suggested that such normative claims can be refined by including the scientific alongside lay uses of a climate concept, and by using explicit assessment conditions to evaluate how suitable a concept is for formulating mitigation and adaptation goals. Drawing on philosophical theories of conceptual change in science and conceptual engineering, a novel framework with two assessment conditions is introduced and then applied to “global warming,” “climate change,” “climate emergency,” and “climate crisis.” The assessment suggests that currently, “climate crisis” is most suitable to formulate and pursue climate mitigation and adaptation goals. Using this concept promotes the epistemic goals of climate science to a high degree, bridges scientific, political, and activist discourse, and fosters for democratic participation when articulating climate policies.This article is categorized under: The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge &gt; Climate Science and Decision Making The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge &gt; Knowledge and Practice Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change &gt; Communication

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Climate ChangeFull AccessIndigenous Knowledge Is Crucial to Confronting Climate Change and Supports Psychiatric PracticeJoseph Neidhardt, M.D.Joseph NeidhardtSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:28 Feb 2022https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2022.03.3.6AbstractMy career arc includes having a long-time practice in preventive and environmental medicine. Over the years, I have become increasingly concerned about the impacts of the climate crisis. My wife, Mary Roessel, M.D., a Navajo psychiatrist and APA Area 7 Trustee, introduced me to Navajo healing, ceremony, and philosophy from which I learned that “we are part of nature.” I redirected my professional focus to climate and health. I read extensively and consulted Indigenous leaders about their perspectives.This led me to become interested in the interface between Indigenous knowledge and climate change, eventually leading to the creation of the book Groundswell: Indigenous Knowledge and a Call to Action for Climate Change. The book combines the writings of Indigenous people with those of experts on climate change. This merging of two perspectives crystallized the relationship between two systems: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western science.We recently made a presentation at COP26 in Glasgow. COP26 stands for the 26th Conference of the Parties. My collaborators and I formulated questions for our presentation: How can Indigenous knowledge be utilized to address the climate crisis? How can complexity science and traditional ecological knowledge assist our search for new solutions? How can Indigenous futurism impact our perspective? The title of our presentation was “Walk in Beauty—Future Dreaming Through Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science.” Our intent was to persuade others that applying Indigenous knowledge can change the world.Our presentation resonated with attendees and other presenters at COP26. Many participants were young and enthusiastic and offered creative solutions. We attended fascinating presentations by and about the Sami people from Finland, Russia, and Norway and Indigenous people in Canada and discussed the “Yellowstone to the Yukon” project and nature-based solutions to climate change. There was significant support for the Land Back movement in Canada and the Amazon. Indigenous people could add significantly to nature-based solutions, especially if the Land Back movement takes hold and leads to the return of stolen lands.The marches and public expressions of urgency were high points of the COP26 experience. The Youth March was filled with enthusiasm; many young people gave compelling speeches, leading us to hope that young people may break through current leaders’ inability to keep global warming increases under 1.5 C.The final governmental agreement, the most publicized component of this massive conference, was simultaneously significant and disappointing. Although there were some major commitments to reduce methane and to continue the pursuit of other forms of carbon reduction, the overall lack of concrete global commitments and the absence of meaningful reparations and protections for more endangered nations (which are not major contributors to climate change) were glaring omissions from the final agreement that emerged from the conference.Psychiatry plays significant roles in responding to the climate crisis. An obvious use of our expertise is to recognize, prevent, and treat the traumatic impacts of extreme weather events, the neuropsychiatric consequences of heat and pollution, and eco-anxiety and mood disorders attributable, in part, to climate change.As we expand our perspective, we can address denial, disavowal, and “green washing” of the scientific facts about the harms of continued extraction and consumption of fossil fuels. As health professionals, we have ethical obligations to speak up about health threats to individuals and the community. More frequent extreme climatic and weather events must be recognized as not just “another bad storm.” The extensive loss of coral reefs and measurable sea-level rise must be brought to our society’s attention.Eco-anxiety, denial, and dissociation are within the purview of psychiatry. We must address these with our patients. We are good at reframing and motivating our patients to change, and we have excellent treatments for anxiety. Unfortunately, I did not encounter these topics at COP26.Our collective has decided to engage with young people with some emphasis on artists who are members of minority groups. They are among those affected “first and worst” by the climate crisis and may benefit the most if the world makes the necessary changes to mitigate, prevent, and reverse the causes and harms of global warming. Taking action is one of the best ways to address eco-anxiety. We can simultaneously foster prevention, help those with eco-anxiety, and make changes that mitigate the climate crisis (see www.envisionthebigpicture.com).Following the lead of our Indigenous allies will produce reciprocity with nature. It would assist in changing our consumer, extraction economy. It will foster equity and equality within our diverse society to reverse nature-based injustice. ■Joseph Neidhardt, M.D., practices in Santa Fe, N.M. He has worked for tribal health programs and is the author of Groundswell: Indigenous Knowledge and a Call to Action for Climate Change. ISSUES NewArchived

Teaching about the ongoing climate crisis feels many times emotionally exhausting. This is particularly because it is often sensed that a large number of our students are hopeless about climate change and its impact. In our experience, we have also recognized that classroom discussions may result in misleading conclusions, namely that &amp;#8220;if there is hope, is not for us&amp;#8221;. &amp;#160;Therefore, in recent years, I have been trying to explore new methods to approach this subject. I have searched how students' interest about climate crisis, i.e., global warming and climate change, as well as their engagement as citizens to deal with&amp;#160;climate&amp;#160;crisis could be awakened.The aspects that I have particularly explored are as follows:1).Geological field studies together with scientists provides new insights into climate crisisSince 2013, I have been working on several projects in collaboration with researchers at the Department of Geological Sciences at Stockholm University. This collaboration began when I participated in a Research Council. Since then, I have been co-leading several projects, which had resulted in that many of my students participated in scientific activities, including making observations, collecting data, and doing fieldwork. By doing fieldwork my students have got new insights into and the time to reflect over the present as well as the past climate changes. This is a way of learning that the &amp;#8220;climate crisis&amp;#8221; is in fact &amp;#8220;a geological problem&amp;#8221;.2). Engagement creates hopeI have been involving my students in several cultural projects where they had the opportunity to express their thoughts about climate crisis to politicians, dream about future solutions, and to search why other people in the society make their voice heard through climate demonstrations. By participating and expressing their thoughts in such activities, my students realized that they could contribute making &amp;#8220;Earth a wonderful planet to live on&amp;#8221;. For examples, a group of them participated in a workshop co-organized by Stockholm University, the Researchers&amp;#8217; Desk, and Lava at Kulturhuset Stadsteatern. The students created textile messages to politicians and decision makers about climate change.In another project, my students have participated in the research project &amp;#8220;Utopian stories&amp;#8221;, a collaboration between the Department of Literary Studies and the Centre of Digital Humanities at the University of Gothenburg and the Bolin Centre for Climate Research at Stockholm University and the Nobel Prize Museum.

The purpose of this review is to increase awareness among reproductive health professionals and trainees about the impact of environmental toxicants and climate change on women's health and mitigation strategies at the individual, professional and governmental levels. Global health indicators reveal a meteoric rise of noncommunicable diseases over the past 50 years, which threaten reproductive health directly and indirectly. Evolutionary genetic mutations as contributors are unlikely in this timeframe, and environmental causes have been invoked. Notably, the past 75 years have witnessed marked increases in industrial chemical production, and global warming has rendered a 'climate crisis' with extreme temperatures and compromised food, water, and air quality. There is now strong experimental and epidemiologic evidence for endocrine disrupting chemicals and particulate matter and chemical components of air pollution in the pathophysiology of human reproductive disorders during development and across the lifespan, especially among vulnerable populations. Environmental impacts on fertility, pregnancy outcomes, childhood neurodevelopment, and reproductive tract development are significant, not widely appreciated, and may be preventable. In light of the evidence, education and advocating economical mitigations of toxic environmental chemicals and alternative energy strategies are imperatives to assure quality reproductive health for this and future generations.

Climate change is one of the core challenges of humankind – and legacy news media continue to be important sources of information about the issue for many people around the globe. Accordingly, how news media portray climate change is important for public awareness and perceptions of the issue. The labeling of the topic – which may rely on more neutral terms like “climate change” or “global warming” or more alarming terms like “climate crisis”, “climate emergency” or “global heating” – is an important facet in this respect. In step with the increasing importance of the issue, outlets such as the British “Guardian” have switched to these more urgent terms in their coverage of climate change. But it is unclear, so far, how pronounced this switch is, and which media have followed suit. Relying on an automated content analysis of climate change coverage from 16 news outlets in eight countries around the world between 1996 and 2021 (N = 89,887), our study investigates the use and proliferation of “climate change compounds” such as “climate crisis”, “global heating”, or “global warming” used to describe the phenomenon. We find that news media still use neutral terms – especially “climate change” – more often than alarming labels. However, the use of the latter has increased strongly since 2019, presumably due to country-specific events and changes in editorial guidelines of national outlets.

The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.