WIREs Climate Change最新文献

{"title":"Early Climate Impact Assessments Targeted 2025—How Did They Perform for Global Water Resources?","authors":"Declan Conway, Rachel A. James, Roger Calow, Kate E. Gannon, Jim W. Hall","doi":"10.1002/wcc.70091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.70091","url":null,"abstract":"Climate impact studies from the 1990s produced projections for global water resources extending to 2025. We evaluate the first two global water resource assessments and the IPCC's 2001 statements on future water resources against subsequent observations. Temperature projections were broadly consistent with what has since been observed. The studies projected a small increase in global precipitation, with increases at high latitudes and decreases in the subtropics; this pattern is consistent with present‐day model projections, though robust observed changes have yet to emerge. Runoff projections for 2025 are hard to assess given limited data and multi‐year variability, but warming effects on snowmelt‐dominated streamflow are consistent with observations. Population projections matched (8.23 billion observed versus 8.01–8.06 billion projected), whereas water demand projections overestimated the increase in water withdrawals (+13% observed versus +19%–52% projected). The IPCC's 2001 projections of impacts on water resources were consistent with its 2021/2022 assessment. These early studies proved influential in research and policy, initiating a proliferation of global water modeling and climate impact assessments. We discuss how the scope of such assessments has evolved. Despite improvements, challenges remain, including uncertainty in runoff and water use data, alongside scope for better water stress indicators and use of earth observation. There is also potential to review early impact projections at sub‐global scales and for other sectors. Progress on water security has been checkered, and improved modeling alone has not been sufficient to drive political change. Meeting the scale and urgency of the challenge will require going beyond model refinement, attending to how risks are framed and identifying other levers to stimulate political will and investment.","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"511 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149274837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Exploring Climate Knowledge Making, Usability, and Use","authors":"Lisa Maillard, Maria Carmen Lemos","doi":"10.1002/wcc.70093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.70093","url":null,"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: <jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item> The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge &gt; Climate Science and Decision Making </jats:list-item> <jats:list-item> The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge &gt; Knowledge and Practice </jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149232263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Interpreting Ensembles of Climate Projections for Impact Studies","authors":"Richard E. Chandler, Chris M. Brierley","doi":"10.1002/wcc.70088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.70088","url":null,"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: <jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item> Climate Models and Modeling &gt; Knowledge Generation with Models </jats:list-item> <jats:list-item> Assessing Impacts of Climate Change &gt; Evaluating Future Impacts of Climate Change </jats:list-item> <jats:list-item> Assessing Impacts of Climate Change &gt; Representing Uncertainty </jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148915616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Climate Justice, Governance, and the Fiscal Asymmetry in Environmental Justice Research","authors":"Ali Gökhan Gölçek","doi":"10.1002/wcc.70090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.70090","url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148902547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"State of Climate Attribution Science in East Africa: A Systematic Review","authors":"Nick Julien Baumgart, Joyce Kimutai, Harriet Eyles, André Düsterhus, Friederike Elly Luise Otto, Emmanuel Raju","doi":"10.1002/wcc.70089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.70089","url":null,"abstract":"Climate attribution studies quantify how human activities have altered the likelihood and magnitude of weather and climate events, clarifying how hazards are shifting under anthropogenic climate change and what this means for affected communities and systems. The field therefore links climate science with decision making and can provide evidence for future planning. Yet most attribution evidence remains concentrated in data and resource rich regions in the Global North, leaving data scarce areas and under‐resourced regions such as East Africa underrepresented. We assess the current state of evidence of climate attribution in East Africa. Following a systematic screening process resulted in the synthesis of 27 attribution studies in the region between 2013 and 2024. Findings highlight that more than half of the studies detect a clear anthropogenic influence, although results remain sensitive to methodological choices, event framing, and substantial model spread. Persistent limitations arise from observational data gaps, model biases, sparse station networks, and weak documentation of heat events and their impacts. Evidence is concentrated in the Horn of Africa, with no studies for Small Island Developing States. Moreover, extreme heat events and tropical cyclones are often overlooked in analyses. Institutional imbalances further constrain the evidence base, as most studies are led by institutions outside East Africa, limiting locally grounded interpretation and relevance for adaptation planning. Strengthening observational networks, expanding regional models, and local capacities is crucial for advancing attribution science and developing adaptation metrics that reflect evolving hazards.","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148860769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"De‐Risking or Dividing? Jurisdictional Carbon Markets and the Politics of Risk Management","authors":"Sasha Maher,Rakhyun E. Kim","doi":"10.1002/wcc.70086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.70086","url":null,"abstract":"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 &gt; Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior Policy and Governance &gt; International Policy Framework Policy and Governance &gt; Governing Climate Change in Communities, Cities, and Regions","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148893631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Rapid Systematic Map of Youth Engagement With Marine Environments in a Changing Climate","authors":"Carlo Ceglia, Alexandra C. Morel, Lorraine van Blerk","doi":"10.1002/wcc.70087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.70087","url":null,"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: <jats:italic>What evidence emerges from qualitative studies of youth engagement with marine environments in a changing climate?</jats:italic> 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.","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148768338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Strengthening Supply‐Side Climate Policy With Social and Cultural Analyses of Fossil Fuels","authors":"Malcolm Sanger, Angela Carter","doi":"10.1002/wcc.70082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.70082","url":null,"abstract":"Supply‐side climate initiatives, now considered essential to achieving Paris Agreement goals, are proliferating. Diverse policies, bans, campaigns, and clubs all propose frameworks for restricting the extraction and production of fossil fuels at national and international levels and are accompanied by a robust scholarly literature that tracks the emergence and evaluates the significance of such policies. Simultaneously, a wide range of social and cultural theory offers essential interpretations of how the consumption and production of fossil fuels have reorganized political and economic infrastructures and everyday lives. These literatures make crucial arguments around the competing temporalities of energy transition, the social construction of an individual, consuming subject, and the imbrication of fossil fuels within wider political economic arrangements but have engaged relatively little with the production or supply‐side of fossil fuels. Here, after reviewing how existing supply‐side climate policy, theory, and action have operated with a simplified conception of the social and cultural, we consider how the insights of energy humanities, petrocultures, and social scientific analyses might strengthen, complicate, and expand the methods, objects, and political reach of supply‐side initiatives, both theoretically and practically. With reference to Canadian examples—Canada being a central obstructionist to phase out policies—we argue that supply‐side climate strategies must be grounded conceptually in the “impasse” of production, employ a set of methods and objects between and beyond the individual and nation‐state, and engage with wider political debates over a future without fossil fuels. This article is categorized under: <jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item> Policy and Governance &gt; Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance </jats:list-item> <jats:list-item> Climate, History, Society, Culture &gt; Disciplinary Perspectives </jats:list-item> <jats:list-item> The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge &gt; Knowledge and Practice </jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148675080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How Effective Is the Fossil‐Fuel Divestment Movement? A Systematic Review","authors":"Ana Xambre Pereira, W. Pieter Pauw, Johanna Höffken","doi":"10.1002/wcc.70083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.70083","url":null,"abstract":"The fossil‐fuel divestment movement (FFDM) emerged after the failed 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, catalyzed by frustration with political inaction to withdraw financial support from fossil‐fuel industry. FFDM claims as victories 1731 divestment commitments from institutions managing over US$40 trillion. Yet global emissions continue to rise, fossil‐fuel financing persists, and the industry's reputation rebounded amid geopolitical instability and renewed climate denialism. This paper investigates how FFDM effectiveness has been conceptualized in academic literature and implications for research and practice. A systematic review of 69 peer‐reviewed articles reveals significant gaps in how effectiveness is defined, measured, and evaluated. FFDM objectives are diverse, shifting, and often beyond its direct influence, hindering assessments and creating a mismatch between global and local scale. Our analysis identified six themes and 22 sub‐themes through which the literature discusses effectiveness: social‐license erosion, discourse framings, empowerment, financial consequences, public awareness, and legal mechanisms. Building on these insights, the paper proposes the FFDM Effectiveness Assessment Framework, which presents effectiveness as a dynamic and multifaceted concept. The framework disentangles the six themes into three orders of impact: (1) changing public narrative; (2) agenda‐setting capacity; and (3) contestation of institutional norms. In the context of the FFDM's vulnerability to geopolitical and social trends, we also argue for a fourth‐order of impact focused on restrictive legislation. This paper contributes to a multidimensional and dynamic conceptualization of the FFDM effectiveness and offers a practical framework to guide evaluation and planning. As the global energy transition unfolds, FFDM can reinforce its credibility, expand its transformative potential, and serve as a model for the broader climate‐justice movement. This article is categorized under: <jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item> Climate Economics &gt; Economics and Climate Change </jats:list-item> <jats:list-item> Policy and Governance &gt; Private Governance of Climate Change </jats:list-item> <jats:list-item> The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge &gt; Climate Science and Social Movements </jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148675081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Three Decades of Scientific Debate on the Additionality of Forest Carbon Offsets: Are We Going in Circles?","authors":"Kirstine L. Christiansen, Wim Carton, Kate Dooley, Jens F. Lund","doi":"10.1002/wcc.70085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.70085","url":null,"abstract":"Carbon markets continue to be central to climate governance despite well‐documented integrity issues. Among the most difficult issues in the debate on market integrity is the question of additionality. Here, we review the scholarly literature on additionality in carbon markets focusing on forest projects, which have gained renewed impetus under the carbon removal agenda. We analyze the literature through three overarching and overlapping periods: (1) the period following the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, when scholars discussed how to operationalize additionality in early carbon market mechanisms; (2) the emergence of markets for avoided deforestation in particular under the REDD+ scheme, when discussions centered on establishing deforestation baselines at national levels; and (3) the present Paris era where new quasi‐experimental methodologies promise to fix credibility issues. Throughout these three periods, scholars have continuously sought to improve approaches. While technological advances and more sophisticated approaches have been introduced, the scholarly chase of additionality in carbon markets continues to grapple with the fact that additionality can never be proven and by the tradeoff between environmental integrity and market flexibility. Thus, old problems and solutions continue to resurface, wherefore we argue that the scholarly discussion on additionality in many ways has been going in circles. The continued commitment to improving additionality assessments has had the unfortunate and unintended effect of lending support to non‐transformation of the climate governance system. We argue, therefore, that it is time to abandon the chase of additionality and the notion that forest carbon offsets can legitimize ongoing emissions elsewhere. This article is categorized under: <jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item> Policy and Governance &gt; Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance </jats:list-item> <jats:list-item> The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation &gt; Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior </jats:list-item> <jats:list-item> Policy and Governance &gt; Private Governance of Climate Change </jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148633759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}