Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Historical responsibility for climate change: science and the science-policy interface
SMHI, Research Department, Climate research - Rossby Centre.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2689-9360
2014 (English)In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, ISSN 1757-7780, E-ISSN 1757-7799, Vol. 5, no 3, 297-316 p.Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Since 1990, the academic literature on historical responsibility (HR) for climate change has grown considerably. Over these years, the approaches to defining this responsibility have varied considerably. This article demonstrates how this variation can be explained by combining various defining aspects of historical contribution and responsibility. Scientific knowledge that takes for granted choices among defining aspects will likely become a basis for distrust within science, among negotiators under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and elsewhere. On the other hand, for various reasons, not all choices can be explicated at all times. In this article, we examine the full breadth of complexities involved in scientifically defining HR and discuss how these complexities have consequences for the science-policy interface concerning HR. To this end, we review and classify the academic literature on historical contributions to and responsibility for climate change into categories of defining aspects. One immediately policy-relevant conclusion emerges from this exercise: Coupled with negotiators' highly divergent understandings of historical responsibility, the sheer number of defining aspects makes it virtually impossible to offer scientific advice without creating distrust in certain parts of the policy circle. This conclusion suggests that scientific attempts to narrow the options for policymakers will have little chance of succeeding unless policymakers first negotiate a clearer framework for historical responsibility. For further resources related to this article, please visit the . Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 5, no 3, 297-316 p.
National Category
Climate Research
Research subject
Climate
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:smhi:diva-116DOI: 10.1002/wcc.270ISI: 000334589500002OAI: oai:DiVA.org:smhi-116DiVA: diva2:802674
Available from: 2015-04-13 Created: 2015-03-26 Last updated: 2015-04-13Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Strandberg, Gustav
By organisation
Climate research - Rossby Centre
In the same journal
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
Climate Research

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 4 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
v. 2.25.0
|