Explore the vast range of titles available.

In early 2009, few would have expected that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would come under such massive attack. The IPCC had enjoyed a pristine reputation and had even advanced to become a role model for biodiversity and food security assessments (Loreau et al. 2006 ; Watson 2005 ). However, public trust and, with it, the organization’s credibility eroded dramatically after November 2009 with the events that became known as ‘climategate’. This article seeks to contribute to current debates about how to reform the IPCC. It argues that there are major flaws in the design of the IPCC which are rooted in the linear model of expertise and which are helping to stoke the backlash against the IPCC. The article analyzes the ways in which the IPCC’s activities conform to the linear model of expertise and considers the consequences of this for integrating adaptation into the IPCC assessments. It explains why adaptation played only a marginal role up until the IPCC Third Assessment Report. It then demonstrates why the use of the linear model of expertise constrains the scientific and political debate about adaptation and leads to proxy debates about scientific evidence, which result in depoliticizing the politics of adaptation and politicizing science . Finally, the article calls for the debate to be opened up to accommodate alternatives that are both politically more feasible and at the same time more appropriate to the specific needs of adaptation policies at different levels of decision-making.

This article explores how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has dealt with growing public scrutiny of its workings. It reviews recent initiatives set up to respond to the Climategate controversy. An independent review of the IPCC undertaken by an international scientific umbrella body—InterAcademy Council—can be shown to have triggered one of the turning points in the debate, placing the focus of attention on the IPCC's transparency and accountability. However, the council's recommendations have been implemented by the IPCC in such a way that the issue of public trust is treated as one of effective communication. The article then explains how IPCC's responses to Climategate can be traced back to the linear model of expertise. The article concludes with a discussion why the challenge of producing policy-relevant knowledge under conditions of heightened public scrutiny also requires new forms of scientific appraisal aimed at wider publics.

In the post-Paris political landscape, the relationship between science and politics is changing. We discuss what this means for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), using recent controversies over negative emissions technologies (NETs) as a window into the fraught politics of producing policy-relevant pathways and scenarios. We suggest that pathways and scenarios have a ‘world-making’ power, potentially shaping the world in their own image and creating new political realities. Assessment bodies like the IPCC need to reflect on this power, and the implications of changing political contexts, in new ways. Following the adoption of the Paris Agreement of December 2015, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has begun to reconsider its role in the climate regime. Based on work in Science and Technology Studies (STS), we reconstruct how the IPCC has historically positioned itself between climate science and policy-making. We then discuss particular challenges raised if the IPCC is shifting along the spectrum from attributing causes and detecting impacts of global warming towards projecting policy solutions, including emerging technologies, by examining recent controversies over negative emissions technologies (NETs). We conclude that the IPCC exercises a ‘world-making’ power by providing new, politically powerful visions of actionable futures, for example, based on speculative technologies of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The task of providing future pathways poses great challenges to conventional ideals of scientific neutrality. We argue that the growing political demand for pathways, and their political significance, requires rethinking modes of assessment that go beyond expert-driven neutral input. Assessment processes must take into account their political contexts and implications in a systematic way.

The IPCC has been successful at building its scientific authority, but it will require institutional reform for staying relevant to new and changing political contexts. Exploring a range of alternative future pathways for the IPCC can help guide crucial decisions about redefining its purpose.

In the emerging post-Paris climate governance regime, the role of scientific expertise is radically changing. The IPCC in particular may find itself in a new role, where projections of future climate function as a kind of regulatory science. This poses great challenges to conventional ideals of scientific neutrality.

This paper asks what lessons can be learned from experiences with coproduction in water governance. For this, we review a comprehensive corpus of articles in the field of water governance that relies on the term. We find that there are radically different understandings of what coproduction means in different branches of the water governance literature. Through this review, we demonstrate how and why coproduction needs to be analyzed for its political implications. Despite being timely and pressing, these questions are not addressed in a sufficient way by the scholarly debate on coproduction. In order to fill this knowledge gap, we first distinguish different historical traditions of coproduction and then explore their political implications along three questions: The “why?”, the “who?”, and the “how?”. We show that these questions find different answers not just between but also within different traditions of using the term. After describing and contrasting these variants, we conclude by summarizing the main lessons from our review and by identifying questions which call for future research.

Germany 2050: For the first time Germany reached a balance between its sources of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere and newly created anthropogenic sinks. This backcasting study presents a fictional future in which this goal was achieved by avoiding (∼645 Mt CO2), reducing (∼50 Mt CO2) and removing (∼60 Mt CO2) carbon emissions. This meant substantial transformation of the energy system, increasing energy efficiency, sector coupling, and electrification, energy storage solutions including synthetic energy carriers, sector‐specific solutions for industry, transport, and agriculture, as well as natural‐sink enhancement and technological carbon dioxide options. All of the above was necessary to achieve a net‐zero CO2 system for Germany by 2050. Plain Language Summary Here a net‐zero‐2050 Germany is envisioned by combining analysis from an energy‐system model with insights into approaches that allow for a higher carbon circularity in the German system, and first results from assessments of national carbon dioxide removal potentials. A back‐casting perspective is applied on how net‐zero Germany could look like in 2050. We are looking back from 2050, and analyzing how Germany for the first time reached a balance between its sources of CO2 to the atmosphere and the anthropogenic sinks created. This would consider full decarbonization in the entire energy sector and being entirely emission‐free by 2050 within three priorities identified as being the most useful strategies for achieving net‐zero: (a) Avoiding‐ (b) Reducing‐ (c) Removing emissions. This work is a collaboration of interdisciplinary scientists with the Net‐Zero‐2050 cluster of the Helmholtz Climate Initiative HI‐CAM. Key Points The net‐zero system shows that for countries like Germany, avoiding CO2 emissions was the largest contribution to achieve net‐zero CO2 With the three strategies of emissions avoidance, reduction, and removal, Germany has achieved its net‐zero CO2 goal for the first time In addition, to natural sink enhancement carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options, technological CDR measures combined with geological CO2 storage were necessary to reach net‐zero CO2

To reach their net‐zero targets, countries will have to compensate hard‐to‐abate CO2 emissions through carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Yet, current assessments rarely include socio‐cultural or institutional aspects or fail to contextualize CDR options for implementation. Here we present a context‐specific feasibility assessment of CDR options for the example of Germany. We assess 14 CDR options, including three chemical carbon capture options, six options for bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and five options that aim to increase ecosystem carbon uptake. The assessment addresses technological, economic, environmental, institutional, social‐cultural and systemic considerations using a traffic‐light system to evaluate implementation opportunities and hurdles. We find that in Germany CDR options like cover crops or seagrass restoration currently face comparably low implementation hurdles in terms of technological, economic, or environmental feasibility and low institutional or social opposition but show comparably small CO2 removal potentials. In contrast, some BECCS options that show high CDR potentials face significant techno‐economic, societal and institutional hurdles when it comes to the geological storage of CO2. While a combination of CDR options is likely required to meet the net‐zero target in Germany, the current climate protection law includes a limited set of options. Our analysis aims to provide comprehensive information on CDR hurdles and possibilities for Germany for use in further research on CDR options, climate, and energy scenario development, as well as an effective decision support basis for various actors. Plain Language Summary Countries aiming to achieve net‐zero emissions will have to remove the remaining carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through carbon dioxide removal (CDR). However, current assessments of CDR options rarely consider socio‐cultural or institutional aspects or set the CDR options in the specific context of their implementation. In this study, researchers conducted the first context‐specific feasibility assessment of CDR options in Germany, considering six dimensions, including technological, economic, environmental, institutional, and social‐cultural aspects. The study assessed 14 CDR options, including chemical carbon capture options, bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, and options to increase ecosystem carbon uptake. The study found that CDR options like cover crops or seagrass restoration face low implementation hurdles but have small CO2 removal potentials, while options like woody‐biomass combustion or mixed‐feedstock biogas production have high CDR potentials but face large economic and institutional hurdles. The analysis aims to provide comprehensive information on CDR options for use in further research and as an effective decision support basis for a range of actors. Key Points More context‐specific assessments of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options are needed to guide national net‐zero decision making Ecosystem‐based CDR options with comparably low implementation hurdles in Germany show relatively small CO2 removal potentials High CDR potential options in Germany face high institutional, technological and societal hurdles linked in many ways to geological storage

According to IPBES’s Global Assessment Report, “[G]oals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors” (IPBES 2019). According to one of the assessors, the MA identified ‘local’ actors and concerns in a highly reductive way in order to provide convenient counterpoints to the MA’s overriding framework arising from a global systems perspective. [...]local’ examples and stakeholders were selected in order to illustrate the assertions of the global systems framework adopted, rather than being used to reframe the framework or to rethink the objectives, benefits or means of managing biodiversity and ecosystem services (Filer 2009). [...]opportunities for co-production and participation can arise in more diverse and distributed ways.

Climate policy has gained focus with the adoption of the 2 °C target, but action to avoid dangerous climate change has not occurred as expected. It is time to reconsider the target, and most importantly, the relationship between climate science and policy.