Climate change is undermining human health globally in other profound ways. It’s a risk multiplier, exacerbating our vulnerability to a range of health threats.
With climate change disasters, as with infectious diseases, rapid response time and global coordination are of the essence. At this stage in the COVID-19 situation, there are three primary lessons for a climate-changing future: the immense challenge of global coordination during a crisis, the potential for authoritarian emergency responses, and the spiraling danger of compounding shocks.
A new analysis published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science finds that funding for social science climate-change research is not only unhealthy but downright anemic at roughly 10 percent of the total spend. Meanwhile, total spending on climate-change research in total, regardless of discipline, comes to just 5 percent of all competitive research grants funded between 1950 and 2018.
Two academics who have integrated what might have once seemed like non-economic externalities into economic models have been awarded the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics. The winners are William D. Nordhaus of Yale University, cited for integrating climate change into macroeconomic analysis, and Paul M. Romer of New York University’s Stern School of Business, cited doing the same with technological innovations.
David Canter reviews results of studies on the challenges of sustaining natural resources.
[We’re pleased to welcome Denis Collins. Denis recently published an article in Organization & Environment entitled “Managing the Poverty-CO2 Reductions […]
The March 2016 issue of World Future Review is now available and can be read online for free for the next 30 days. […]
As we are often reminded, we urgently and drastically need to limit our use of one shared resource – fossil fuels – and its effect on another – the climate. But how realistic is this goal, both for national leaders and for us? Well, psychology may hold some answers.
Derek Wall praises ‘The Two Degrees Dangerous Limit for Climate Change: Public Understanding and Decision Making,’ Christopher Shaw’s exploration of environmental policymaking. The book focuses on the public circulation of 2°C as the widely cited maximum figure by which temperatures can be allowed to rise.
To move forward on climate change, argues Andy Hoffman, we have to disengage from fixed battle on one scientific front and seek approaches that engage people who are undecided about climate change on multiple social and cultural fronts.
Although the GOP is usually fingered as anti-science, biased attitudes toward scientific information and trust in the scientific community can be found among liberals and conservatives alike, new research shows. As you might expect, biases vary based on the science topic being considered.
The natural sciences present easy-to-follow prescriptions for addressing climate change. Unfortunately, getting human beings to sign on requires navigating a maze of psychological, domestic, social, economic, political and cultural forces.
