ABSTRACT Scholars in the social sciences have long been inspired by the question of why and how scientific knowledge is used (or not). In the case of scientific climate knowledge (SCK), two prevalent arguments to explain lack of use posit that: (1) Although SCK is inherently useful, there is a “deficit” regarding climate knowledge production and accessibility and (2) SCK lacks usability or actionability because it does not fit what users want. To address the issue of usefulness/deficit, scholars have argued that we need to (a) make more and better knowledge; (b) improve how climate scientists communicate knowledge; or (c) increase public scientific literacy. In turn, addressing lack of actionability requires scientists interacting and iterating with potential users to better understand and take into consideration user needs and constraints. More recently, a third body of literature has emerged seeking to understand SCK use by focusing on how users make decisions. Yet, while there is growing empirical literature, especially related to climate adaptation, addressing SCK usefulness and actionability, relatively less evidence is available about its use. In this review, we argue that to better explain how and why SKC is used or not, these three bodies of literature need to reconcile across their theoretical assumptions and analytical frameworks, methodological and research design approaches, and findings. This article is categorized under: The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice
ABSTRACT To study the potential impacts of future changes in the earth's climate, projections of these changes are required. These are usually produced using complex computer models, and are subject to many uncertainties which are often sampled using collections (“ensembles”) of model simulations. However, the sampling in any individual ensemble is incomplete and often unrepresentative. This creates challenges for users of the projections, especially when it is important to understand the range of potential impacts that can reasonably be expected. Other challenges include the presence of systematic discrepancies between the model outputs and observations of the real climate system; and the fact that it is often infeasible to work with all members of an ensemble so that an appropriate subset must be chosen. Various approaches have been suggested for addressing each of these issues: a critical review is provided here, to allow an informed choice depending on the requirements of a given application. This article is categorized under: Climate Models and Modeling > Knowledge Generation with Models Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Evaluating Future Impacts of Climate Change Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Representing Uncertainty
ABSTRACT The paper follows the evolution of environmental justice research from 1995 to 2025 and examines if the increasing interest in governance and climate politics has been followed by similar concern for fiscal policy tools. This is done through an analysis of the mapping of publications and thematic elements in three periods based on a corpus of English language, peer‐reviewed journal articles found in the Scopus database. The results show that environmental justice research has become increasingly policy‐oriented, focusing on governance and climate justice, while fiscal policies have received only marginal attention. What is crucial here is that the comparison between the corpus of environmental justice and an independent corpus of climate justice shows that this marginal attention is discriminatory because fiscal policy questions are addressed in the context of international financing of climate change but not in the context of national fiscal statecraft.
ABSTRACT Jurisdictional approaches under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement are rapidly shaping global carbon markets. By linking emissions mitigation activities to state action and broader policy frameworks, these approaches are often presented as a way to address some of the integrity and ethical concerns associated with project‐based carbon crediting. Yet the risk of not delivering committed credit volumes persists regardless of scale, governance actor, or institutional structure. To manage this credit delivery risk, financial products such as carbon insurance are increasingly viewed as critical. This paper argues that private performance insurance should not be understood as a neutral technical fix. While it may help manage some delivery risks, it can also create new forms of inequity by making coverage more costly, restrictive, or unavailable for jurisdictions deemed “higher risk”. These jurisdictions may also be those most in need of climate finance. Private insurance should therefore be considered only as part of a broader risk management architecture that includes public or hybrid insurance mechanisms, carbon buffers, temporary crediting, and direct investment in risk reduction. Considered policy design is essential to ensure Article 6.2 initiatives and jurisdictional carbon markets promote inclusive, sustainable, and effective climate outcomes. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior Policy and Governance > International Policy Framework Policy and Governance > Governing Climate Change in Communities, Cities, and Regions
ABSTRACT This paper offers a rapid systematic map of existing qualitative literature on the relationship(s) between marine environments and youth in a changing climate. Building upon recent public, scientific, and scholarly trends that draw attention to the value the ocean holds for both socio‐economic prosperity and climate regulation, this systematic map asks: What evidence emerges from qualitative studies of youth engagement with marine environments in a changing climate? The mapping identified 20 articles thematically coded under three categories—namely, (i) youth experiences of marine environments and climate change, (ii) marine‐based pedagogical approaches to climate change, and (iii) creative strategies and new media. Along with these 3 main categories, the mapping identified different cross‐cutting themes that the 20 studies share. These were discussed as (a) the importance of intergenerational dynamics and intergenerational justice, (b) the lack of youth's insights in marine‐based climate discourses, and (c) the need for place‐based socio‐cultural and economic interventions. After presenting and discussing the results, this rapid systematic map concludes by indicating areas for further research. Specifically, it highlights the need for more place‐based, granular approaches that engage young people on their own terms and experiences as having tremendous value for articulating more ocean‐ and climate‐sensitive interventions. At the same time, it cautions that those same interventions must feed into wider socio‐economic and institutional dynamics that account for the historical responsibilities of a changing climate.
