Climate

Cutting carbon cuts "fossilflation" — and yes, that needs to be balanced against "greenflation." The Inflation Reduction Act tackles both, but getting the balance right will be key.

Should businesses worry about climate risk because doing so is good for their bottom line, or because their responsibilities ought to go beyond mere financial returns to shareholders? What if expanding one’s lens to include environmental, social, and corporate governance turns out to be good for business? What if not? These fundamental questions lie at the core of numerous ambitious efforts to align tools and resources of finance with global action to address climate change.

It is hard to look at a crisis like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and see a moment of opportunity. We—to say nothing of Ukrainians—are still very much in a crisis, and a compounding one at that, with potential long-lasting economic and political consequences.

Climate change brought on by human activities lead to acute and chronic hazards that threaten the planet; to reduce the chances of the most dangerous and irreversible damage, the global community must reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide. While more than 70 countries (~80% of global CO2 emissions and ~90% of global GDP) and over 5,000 influential companies have adopted net-zero commitments, coordination of an effort to this scale, given the complex economic, societal, governance and infrastructure considerations, is no easy feat.

Community input matters in long-term decisions related to climate change, including the development of public infrastructure. In order to assess the effect of different ways of informing the public about infrastructure projects, a sample of people in the United States (n = 630) was provided with a case study concerning the redevelopment of the San Diego Airport. Participants received the same written information about the projected future condition of the airport.

Investing in the next generation of nuclear reactors could give the world an important tool for reducing carbon emissions.

Climate change is a complex phenomenon that the public learns about both abstractly through media and education, and concretely through personal experiences. While public beliefs about global warming may be controversial in some circles, an emerging body of research on the ‘local warming’ effect suggests that people’s judgments of climate change or global warming are impacted by recent, local temperatures.

The social cost of nitrous oxide does not account for stratospheric ozone depletion. Doing so could increase its value by 20%. Links between nitrous oxide and other nitrogen pollution impacts could make mitigation even more compelling.

As the prospect of average global warming exceeding 1.5°C becomes increasingly likely, interest in supplementing mitigation and adaptation with solar geoengineering (SG) responses will almost certainly rise. For example stratospheric aerosol injection to cool the planet could offset some of the warming for a given accumulation of atmospheric greenhouse gases (1). However, the physical and social science literature on SG remains modest compared with mitigation and adaptation.