全球升温1.5℃与2.0℃情景下长江中下游地区极端降水的变化特征

基于长江中下游地区1961~2100年区域气候模式COSMO-CLM(CCLM)模拟与1961~2005年气象站观测的逐日降水数据,通过统计计算年降水量、强降水量、暴雨日数和极端降水贡献率4个极端降水指数,研究全球升温1.5℃与2.0℃情景下,长江中下游地区极端降水的时空变化特征。结果表明:(1)全球升温1.5℃情景下,年降水量相对于1986~2005年减少5%,强降水量、暴雨日数和极端降水贡献率分别增加7%、33%和4%;概率密度曲线表明,年降水量均值下降,强降水量、暴雨日数和极端降水贡献率均值上升,极端降水方差增大;年降水量、强降水量和暴雨日数在空间上表现为南部增加北部减少,极端降水贡献率则相反。(2)全球升温2.0℃情景下,年降水量下降3%,强降水量、暴雨日数和极端降水贡献率分别上升15%、46%和15%;年降水量均值稍有减少且方差稍有上升,强降水量、暴雨日数和极端降水贡献率均值和方差明显增加;年降水量减少区域位于长江主干以北,强降水量、暴雨日数和极端降水贡献率表现为绝大部分地区增加的空间变化特征。(3)全球升温由1.5℃至2.0℃时,年降水量、强降水量、暴雨日数和极端降水贡献率分别增加3%、7%、10%和11%;随升温幅度的增加极端降水均值和方差上升;极端降水呈增加态势的范围扩大。因此,努力将升温控制在1.5℃对降低极端降水的影响具有重要意义。     

Moral reasoning in adaptation to climate change

Moral foundations theory argues that moral reasoning is widely observed and fundamental to the legitimacy of relevant governance and policy interventions. A new analytical framework to examine and test how moral reasoning underpins and legitimizes governance and practice on adaptation to climate change risks is proposed. It develops a typology of eight categories of vulnerability-based and system-based moral reasoning that pertain to the dilemmas around adaptation and examines the prevalence of these moral categories in public discourse about specific adaptation issues. The framework is tested using data on climate change impact, adaptation, and societal responsibility, drawn from 14 focus groups comprising 148 participants across the UK. Participants consistently use moral reasoning to explain their views on climate adaptation; these include both vulnerability-based and system-based framings. These findings explain public responses to adaptation options and governance, and have implications for the direction of adaptation policy, including understanding which types of reasoning support politically legitimate interventions.     

Taming the Climate? Corpus analysis of politicians’ speech on climate change

The politics of climate change is much discussed, but there has been little investigation into how politicians themselves understand or articulate the issue. Corpus analysis, a method developed within linguistics, is used to investigate how UK politicians talk about climate change, using the example of the 2008 Climate Change Bill. Corpus techniques, including keyword analysis, collocation and semantic tagging, are used, alongside critical reading of the text. The analysis shows that politicians frame climate change as an economic and technical issue, and neglect discussion of the human and social dimensions. They are selective in their use of scientific evidence, with little mention of abrupt or irreversible change. In doing so, they attempt to ‘tame’ climate change, rather than confronting difficult realities. While this strategy has the benefit of political acceptability, it does not allow for discussion of the full political and social implications of climate change, and precludes more radical responses.     

Elite cues,media coverage,and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013

To analyze the factors affecting US public concern about the threat of climate change between January 2002 and December 2013, data from 74 separate surveys are used to construct quarterly measures of public concern over global climate change. Five factors should account for changes in levels of concern: extreme weather events, public access to accurate scientific information, media coverage, elite cues, and movement/countermovement advocacy. Structural equation modeling indicates that elite cues, movement advocacy efforts, weather, and structural economic factors influence the level of public concern about climate change. While media coverage exerts an important influence, it is itself largely a function of elite cues and economic factors. Promulgation to the public of scientific information on climate change has no effect. Information-based science advocacy has had only a minor effect on public concern, while political mobilization by elites and advocacy groups is critical in influencing climate change concern.     

Another avenue of action: an examination of climate change countermovement industries’ use of PAC donations and their relationship to Congressional voting over time

The political mobilization of American business elites in the 1970s and 1980s has been well studied by political scientists. Environmental sociologists have explored how industries in this elite countermovement have organized to prevent environmental legislation. The literature often focuses on the efforts of this movement to shape public opinion on climate change. However, political scientists argue business elites are running several parallel strategies simultaneously in order to protect their interests. FEC data are utilized in multilevel logit models to examine how donations from industrial Political Action Committees (PACs) relate to Congressional representative’s environmental voting behavior over a 20-year period. Industries associated with the environmental countermovement have increasingly used PAC donations over time, and every additional $10,000 a representative received from countermovement industries significantly decreased odds of their taking the pro-environmental stance even when controlling for representatives’ demographics, districts, Congressional polarization and time-period.     

Why does the United States lack a global warming policy? The corporate inner circle versus public interest sector elites

Why has the United States not adopted global warming policies? Because the inner circle of the corporate elite has opposed these policies despite some corporate support for cap-and-trade and other policies. Pro- and anti-positions taken by think tanks that have led the policy debate in the post-Kyoto period are analyzed in order to demonstrate this. The corporate and upper class social ties of the directors of these pro- and anti-think tanks are examined, revealing a corporate elite split between the inner circle opposing these policies, and a ‘public interest sector’ of corporate law and media corporations along with top executives from higher education and other nonprofits that is supportive of policies addressing global warming. To enable adoption of major global warming policies, the corporate inner circle will need to become supportive and forge a class-wide corporate consensus on the need to address global warming.     

国外学术界对《巴黎协定》的评价及履约前景分析

2016年《巴黎协定》的正式生效是全球环境治理的重要里程碑,是国际社会在应对气候变化的艰难进程中迈出的重要一步,标志着全球环境治理从此进入履约阶段。本文基于宾夕法尼亚大学智库与公民社会项目(TTCSP)公布的《2015年全球智库指数报告》,选取其中排名前十位的国际环境智库的研究报告和环境领域中代表性学者的相关论文,对国外学术界有关《巴黎协定》履约前景的分析进行了系统梳理,并对此做出简要评述。文章在肯定《巴黎协定》有力推进国际气候治理进程的同时,也指出在新的国际形势之下,尤其是在英国正式启动脱欧进程和特朗普新任美国总统后,其履约过程中更是存在着协定之内和协定之外的众多挑战和不确定性,本文的基本结论如下:首先,协定之内面临着协定缔约方国内批准程序上的挑战;国家自主贡献的实现与发展中国家能力建设;2℃温升目标的实现前景;审评和盘点的效力评估;碳市场机制能否有效运行。其次,协定之外面临着英国脱欧的潜在气候政策变化及影响;美国气候政策的可能变化及其影响。基于对以上智库报告和相关研究论文的分析,笔者对《巴黎协定》的履约前景得出几点看法:(1)正视国际气候合作的机遇与挑战;(2)对具体议题的落实需充满信心;(3)理性冷静看待英美气候政策的可能变化;(4)鼓励环境类国际组织之外的非国家行为体展开通力合作。对此,我们应正视履约中的挑战与不确定性,做好充分的应对之策,确保履约进程的顺利完成。总之,《巴黎协定》的履约前景不容乐观,国际社会任重道远。     

特朗普“去气候化”政策对全球气候治理的影响

美国特朗普政府宣布退出《巴黎协定》是当前全球气候治理中最受舆论关注的问题,对事态发展趋势的判断和事件影响的评估是最为亟需的。本文系统分析了特朗普政府上任后推行的一系列"去气候化"政策,以及其退出《巴黎协定》的主要动因和可能形式,同时量化评估了这些内政外交的"倒退"对美国实施国家自主贡献目标以及全球气候治理格局的实质影响,并据此提出了中国应对全球气候治理新形势变化的对策和建议。研究表明,特朗普政府"美国优先"的能源政策根植于复兴制造业和加大基础设施投资的经济利益动机,随着特朗普"去气候化"进程持续发酵,诸多气候政策面临存续风险,美国实施国家自主贡献将面临严峻挑战,"倒行政策"将有可能使美国温室气体排放出现反弹。如果不考虑中、高危气候政策,美国2025年温室气体排放也仅能相对2005年下降11.0%—14.9%,距离下降26%—28%的国家自主贡献目标相去甚远。同时,特朗普政府拒绝继续履行向发展中国家提供气候资金支持的义务,将有可能导致绿色气候基金拖欠资金总额上升117%,并进一步挫伤全球低碳投资的信心。没有美国的全球气候治理3.0时代将呈现出新的复杂特征,并不可避免地造成减排、资金和领导力缺口的持续扩大,也不排除后续会出现消极的跟随者,整体进程将可能进入一个低潮周期。虽然国际社会对中国引领全球气候治理充满期待,但中国仍应审慎对待,长远谋划应对气候变化的内政外交战略,而不应将"气候举旗"看作是一蹴而就的短期策略,对各种要求中国发挥"领导作用"的说法保持清醒头脑。在今后气候谈判中,美国仍有较大可能会二次"要价",中国作为排放大国的压力依然不容小觑,中美气候关系需要再定位。     

Think globally,act locally: neighbourhood pollution and the future of the earth

Each year governments and industry around the globe spend billions of dollars in search of treatments and cures for diseases that shorten lives, which often means gadgets, implants, radiation and pills. These “cures”, do not get to the root of the problem. Perhaps it is time for us to adjust our thinking to be more proactive instead of reactive in public health. Perhaps we need to consider confronting environmental pollution of air, soil and water at a local level. As the Physicians for Social Responsibility point out, we should be “preventing what we cannot cure”. One such preventive measure is ensuring that our communities, including our poor inner-city neighbourhoods, enjoy a clean environment. We challenge local and national policy-makers to respond to the global call and to take action to address environmental toxins; to take local action to ameliorate the pollution of the air, water and soil in so many of our nation’s neighbourhoods. A person’s neighbourhood, and the proximity of dangerous environmental contaminants within it, is a powerful predictor of how long s/he will live. While situations like the poisoning of the water in Flint, Michigan have gotten some attention, they are generally treated as the exception rather than a reflection of real environmental hazards that exist in the west. Moreover we wonder why more endemic issues of neighbourhood environmental contamination that shorten human lives are not a priority for local action or that it is not linked to disproportionate production of greenhouse gases that cause climate change/warming/chaos.     

Making cities resilient to climate change: identifying “win–win” interventions

Urbanisation is truly a global phenomenon. Starting at 39% in 1980, the urbanisation level rose to 52% in 2011. Ongoing rapid urbanisation has led to increase in urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Urban climate change risks have also increased with increase in climate-induced extreme weather events and more low-income urban dwellers living in climate sensitive locations. Despite increased emissions, including GHGs and heightened climate change vulnerability, climate mitigation and adaptation actions are rare in the cities of developing countries. Cities are overwhelmed with worsening congestion, air pollution, crime, waste management, and unemployment problems. Lack of resources and capacity constraints are other factors that discourage cities from embarking on climate change mitigation and adaptation pathways. Given the multitude of problems faced, there is simply no appetite for stand-alone urban climate change mitigation and adaptation policies and programmes. Urban mitigation and adaptation goals will have to be achieved as co-benefits of interventions targeted at solving pressing urban problems and challenges. The paper identifies administratively simple urban interventions that can help cities solve some of their pressing service delivery and urban environmental problems, while simultaneously mitigating rising urban GHG emissions and vulnerability to climate change.