IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v172y2022i1d10.1007_s10584-022-03347-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A defense of usable climate mitigation science: how science can contribute to social movements

Author

Listed:
  • Henri F. Drake

    (Princeton University
    Previously, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Geoffrey Henderson

    (University of California)

Abstract

Much of modern climate science is motivated by the problem of human-caused climate change or its potential solutions, and aims to be “usable” for relevant stakeholders. Sobel (2021) argues in this issue that the expectation for improved climate projections to drive mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions “can now be understood [as] naive about the role of politics, and the power of entrenched interests to inhibit climate action.” While he criticizes this “linear model” of the science–policy interface; he does not elaborate on alternative avenues for scientific advances to spur mitigation. Instead, he encourages physical climate scientists who wish to produce usable results to orient their work towards informing adaptation. He argues that, relative to mitigation science, adaptation science is more likely to be used by stakeholders because the remaining scientific uncertainties are larger and the social barriers to implementation are lower. We join Sobel in calling on physical climate scientists to reflect upon the pathways through which their research improves societal welfare. However, we argue that Sobel’s argument overlooks an important theory of change, namely that mitigation science is politically usable through the non-linear dynamics of social mobilization. Social theories of policy change suggest that organized groups play an outsized role in setting the policy agenda. Grassroots activism on climate, however, has historically been hindered by the abstract nature of climate change, paling in comparison to the lobbying and misinformation campaigns funded by the vested fossil fuel interests. We describe how two recent advances in mitigation science, the Transient Climate Response to cumulative Emissions (TCRE) and Extreme Event Attribution (EEA), have provided social movements with information that allows them to re-frame the climate change problem in a way that attributes blame for the problem, motivates collective action across a diverse coalition of stakeholders, and could plausibly compel policymakers to prioritize the issue in the coming years. Given the utmost importance of mitigation in preventing climate change at the source, we thus advocate for a broader agenda of usable climate research that includes co-production of both mitigation and adaptation science.

Suggested Citation

  • Henri F. Drake & Geoffrey Henderson, 2022. "A defense of usable climate mitigation science: how science can contribute to social movements," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-18, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:172:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-022-03347-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-022-03347-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-022-03347-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-022-03347-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alice Lépissier & Matto Mildenberger, 2021. "Unilateral climate policies can substantially reduce national carbon pollution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Deborah R. Coen, 2021. "A brief history of usable climate science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Candis Callison, 2021. "Refusing more empire: utility, colonialism, and Indigenous knowing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-14, August.
    4. Peter A. Stott & David J. Karoly & Francis W. Zwiers, 2017. "Is the choice of statistical paradigm critical in extreme event attribution studies?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 143-150, September.
    5. Timothy M. Lenton & Johan Rockström & Owen Gaffney & Stefan Rahmstorf & Katherine Richardson & Will Steffen & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, 2019. "Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against," Nature, Nature, vol. 575(7784), pages 592-595, November.
    6. H. Damon Matthews & Nathan P. Gillett & Peter A. Stott & Kirsten Zickfeld, 2009. "The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions," Nature, Nature, vol. 459(7248), pages 829-832, June.
    7. Omar Bellprat & Virginie Guemas & Francisco Doblas-Reyes & Markus G. Donat, 2019. "Towards reliable extreme weather and climate event attribution," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-7, December.
    8. Myles R. Allen & David J. Frame & Chris Huntingford & Chris D. Jones & Jason A. Lowe & Malte Meinshausen & Nicolai Meinshausen, 2009. "Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne," Nature, Nature, vol. 458(7242), pages 1163-1166, April.
    9. Elisabeth A. Lloyd & Naomi Oreskes & Sonia I. Seneviratne & Edward J. Larson, 2021. "Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 1-10, April.
    10. Nordhaus, William D., 1993. "Rolling the 'DICE': an optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 27-50, March.
    11. Peter Newell & Andrew Simms, 2020. "Towards a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 1043-1054, September.
    12. Andreas Madestam & Daniel Shoag & Stan Veuger & David Yanagizawa-Drott, 2013. "Do Political Protests Matter? Evidence from the Tea Party Movement," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(4), pages 1633-1685.
    13. Quirin Schiermeier, 2021. "Climate science is supporting lawsuits that could help save the world," Nature, Nature, vol. 597(7875), pages 169-171, September.
    14. Michael E. Mann & Elisabeth A. Lloyd & Naomi Oreskes, 2017. "Assessing climate change impacts on extreme weather events: the case for an alternative (Bayesian) approach," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 131-142, September.
    15. Sheila Jasanoff, 2021. "Knowledge for a just climate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 1-8, December.
    16. Myles Allen, 2003. "Liability for climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 421(6926), pages 891-892, February.
    17. Geert Jan Oldenborgh & Karin Wiel & Sarah Kew & Sjoukje Philip & Friederike Otto & Robert Vautard & Andrew King & Fraser Lott & Julie Arrighi & Roop Singh & Maarten Aalst, 2021. "Pathways and pitfalls in extreme event attribution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-27, May.
    18. Peter A. Stott & D. A. Stone & M. R. Allen, 2004. "Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003," Nature, Nature, vol. 432(7017), pages 610-614, December.
    19. Adam H. Sobel, 2021. "Usable climate science is adaptation science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sibel Eker & Charlie Wilson & Niklas Hohne & Mark S. McCaffrey & Irene Monasterolo & Leila Niamir & Caroline Zimm, 2023. "A dynamic systems approach to harness the potential of social tipping," Papers 2309.14964, arXiv.org.
    2. Diekert, Florian & Goeschl, Timo & König-Kersting, Christian, 2024. "The Behavioral Economics of Extreme Event Attribution," Working Papers 0741, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. Deborah R. Coen & Adam Sobel, 2022. "Introduction: Critical and historical perspectives on usable climate science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-9, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henrik Thorén & Johannes Persson & Lennart Olsson, 2021. "A pluralist approach to epistemic dilemmas in event attribution science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Theodore G. Shepherd & Elisabeth A. Lloyd, 2021. "Meaningful climate science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Deborah R. Coen & Adam Sobel, 2022. "Introduction: Critical and historical perspectives on usable climate science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-9, May.
    4. Aglaé Jézéquel & Vivian Dépoues & Hélène Guillemot & Mélodie Trolliet & Jean-Paul Vanderlinden & Pascal Yiou, 2018. "Behind the veil of extreme event attribution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 367-383, August.
    5. Adam Michael Bauer & Cristian Proistosescu & Gernot Wagner, 2023. "Carbon Dioxide as a Risky Asset," CESifo Working Paper Series 10278, CESifo.
    6. Francesco Lamperti & Valentina Bosetti & Andrea Roventini & Massimo Tavoni, 2019. "The public costs of climate-induced financial instability," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(11), pages 829-833, November.
    7. Christoph Hambel & Holger Kraft & Frederick van der Ploeg, 2024. "Asset Diversification Versus Climate Action," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 65(3), pages 1323-1355, August.
    8. Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Meunier, Guy & Hallegatte, Stéphane, 2018. "When starting with the most expensive option makes sense: Optimal timing, cost and sectoral allocation of abatement investment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 210-233.
    9. Pommeret, Aude & Ricci, Francesco & Schubert, Katheline, 2022. "Critical raw materials for the energy transition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    10. Bruno Conte & Klaus Desmet & Dávid Krisztián Nagy & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2021. "Local sectoral specialization in a warming world," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 493-530.
    11. Ashwin K Seshadri, 2017. "Economics of limiting cumulative CO2 emissions," Papers 1706.03502, arXiv.org.
    12. Rick Van der Ploeg & Christoph Hambel & Holger Kraft, 2020. "Asset Pricing and Decarbonization: Diversification versus Climate Action," Economics Series Working Papers 901, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    13. Hambel, Christoph & Kraft, Holger & Schwartz, Eduardo, 2021. "The social cost of carbon in a non-cooperative world," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    14. Tobias Pfrommer & Timo Goeschl & Alexander Proelss & Martin Carrier & Johannes Lenhard & Henrike Martin & Ulrike Niemeier & Hauke Schmidt, 2019. "Establishing causation in climate litigation: admissibility and reliability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 67-84, January.
    15. Zhongwei Liu & Jonathan M. Eden & Bastien Dieppois & Matthew Blackett, 2022. "A global view of observed changes in fire weather extremes: uncertainties and attribution to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 1-20, July.
    16. John McClure & Ilan Noy & Yoshi Kashima & Taciano L. Milfont, 2022. "Attributions for extreme weather events: science and the people," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Friederike E. L. Otto & Petra Minnerop & Emmanuel Raju & Luke J. Harrington & Rupert F. Stuart‐Smith & Emily Boyd & Rachel James & Richard Jones & Kristian C. Lauta, 2022. "Causality and the fate of climate litigation: The role of the social superstructure narrative," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(5), pages 736-750, November.
    18. Diekert, Florian & Goeschl, Timo & König-Kersting, Christian, 2024. "The Behavioral Economics of Extreme Event Attribution," Working Papers 0741, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    19. Geert Jan Oldenborgh & Karin Wiel & Sarah Kew & Sjoukje Philip & Friederike Otto & Robert Vautard & Andrew King & Fraser Lott & Julie Arrighi & Roop Singh & Maarten Aalst, 2021. "Pathways and pitfalls in extreme event attribution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-27, May.
    20. Brown, Lawrence H. & Blanchard, Ian E., 2012. "Energy, emissions and emergency medical services: Policy matters," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 585-593.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:172:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-022-03347-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.