Transforming communication and knowledge production processes to address high-end climate change

Abstract Recent GHG emissions trends are in stark contrast with the Paris Agreement’s target to hold the increase in average global warming to “well below 2 °C and pursue efforts to stay below 1,5 °C” by the end of the century compared with preindustrial times. This disconnect has further unveiled the limitations of current knowledge production and communication processes in Southern European countries, where fast institutional changes are needed to address the potential impacts as well as the opportunities for transformation derived from High-End Climate Change (HECC). The prevailing knowledge deficit-model – aimed at producing ‘more knowledge’ about climate impacts, vulnerabilities and long-term scenarios to decision makers – has long proven inadequate in tackling the many complexities of the present socio-climate quandary. The growing emphasis on assessing and implementing concrete solutions, demand new and more complex forms of agent interactions in the production, framing, communication and use of climate knowledge; and in particular, explicit procedures able to tackle difficult normative questions regarding assessment of solutions and the allocation of individual and collective responsibilities. To explore these challenges, we analyse the views of 30 Spanish knowledge contributors and users of the latest UN IPCC AR5 report and share the insights gained from the implementation of a participatory Integrated Assessment procedure aimed at developing innovative solutions to high-end climate scenarios in Iberia. Our analysis supports the view of the need to institutionalise transformation, and in particular underlines the potential role that transformative climate boundary organisations could play to address such difficult ethical choices in different contexts of action.

[1]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks , 2011 .

[2]  D. Guston Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction , 2001 .

[3]  A. Corner,et al.  Breaking the climate change communication deadlock , 2014 .

[4]  Art Dewulf,et al.  What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity , 2016 .

[5]  S. Beck Between Tribalism and Trust: The IPCC Under the "Public Microscope" , 2012 .

[6]  Christine J. Kirchhoff,et al.  Narrowing the climate information usability gap , 2012 .

[7]  Susanne C. Moser,et al.  Can science on transformation transform science? Lessons from co-design , 2016 .

[8]  K. Anderson,et al.  Talks in the city of light generate more heat , 2015, Nature.

[9]  R. Ison,et al.  Narrative research in climate change adaptation—Exploring a complementary paradigm for research and governance , 2014 .

[10]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options , 2013 .

[11]  D. Sarewitz Does climate change knowledge really matter? , 2011 .

[12]  I. Otto,et al.  Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change , 2013 .

[13]  S. Dessai,et al.  Actionable Knowledge for Environmental Decision Making: Broadening the Usability of Climate Science , 2013 .

[14]  Tischa A. Muñoz-Erickson Co-production of knowledge–action systems in urban sustainable governance: The KASA approach , 2014 .

[15]  T. M. Harrison,et al.  The “I” in climate: The role of individual responsibility in systematic processing of climate change information , 2014 .

[16]  L. Dilling,et al.  Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy , 2011 .

[17]  S. Moser Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say? , 2016 .

[18]  Hywel T. P. Williams,et al.  Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report , 2015 .

[19]  Donella H. Meadows,et al.  Envisioning a Sustainable World , 2014 .

[20]  J. Tàbara,et al.  Spain: words that succeed and climate policies that fail , 2003 .

[21]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement , 2009 .

[22]  Anthony Leiserowitz,et al.  A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change , 2012, Climatic Change.

[23]  Hoesung Lee,et al.  Turning the focus to solutions , 2015, Science.

[24]  Doug Miller,et al.  Reframing public opinion on climate change , 2013 .

[25]  W. Pearce,et al.  Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus , 2015 .

[26]  P. Driessen,et al.  Boundary organisations and their strategies : Three cases in the Wadden Sea , 2016 .

[27]  J. Tàbara,et al.  Coupling Human Information and Knowledge Systems with social-ecological systems change: Reframing research, education, and policy for sustainability , 2013 .

[28]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways , 2013, Climatic Change.

[29]  W. Clark,et al.  Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  A. Franklin,et al.  Place as a boundary device for the sustainability sciences: Concepts of place, their value in characterising sustainability problems, and their role in fostering integrative research and action , 2015 .