opinion & comment
results on CTI available with current data
are unlikely to be flawed by major problems
due to STI uncertainty. ❐ 8
Vincent Devictor1*, Chris van Swaay2,
Tom Brereton3, Lluís Brotons4,5,
Dan Chamberlain6, Janne Heliölä7,
Sergi Herrando4, Romain Julliard8,
Mikko Kuussaari7, Åke Lindström9,
Jiří Reif10, David B. Roy11, Oliver Schweiger12,
Josef Settele12, Constantí Stefanescu13,
Arco Van Strien14, Chris Van Turnhout15,16,
Zdeněk Vermouzek17, Michiel Wallis De Vries2,18,
Irma Wynhoff2 and Frédéric Jiguet8
1
Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution, UMR
CNRS-UM2 5554, Montpellier 34095, France,
2
Dutch Butterfly Conservation, PO Box 506,
6700 AM, Wageningen, The Netherlands,
3
Butterfly Conservation, Wareham, BH20
5QP, UK, 4Catalan Ornithological Institute,
08003 Barcelona, Spain, 5Centre Tecnològic
Forestal de Catalunya, 25280 Solsona, Spain,
6
British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, IP24
COMMENTARY:
A new paradigm for
climate change
Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows
How climate change science is conducted, communicated and translated into policy must be radically
transformed if ‘dangerous’ climate change is to be averted.
W
ith the Rio+20 conference on
sustainable development now
over, it remains unclear how
much attention policymakers, businesses
and the public paid to scientific analyses
of climate change. A question also
remains as to how impartial, objective
and direct scientists were in presenting
their evidence; politicians may well
have left Rio without understanding the
viability and implications of proposed low-
carbon pathways.
We urgently need to acknowledge that
the development needs of many countries
leave the rich western nations with little
choice but to immediately and severely
curb their greenhouse gas emissions1,2. But
academics may again have contributed
to a misguided belief that commitments
to avoid warming of 2 °C can still be
realized with incremental adjustments to
economic incentives. A carbon tax here, a
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 2 | SEPTEMBER 2012 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 639
2PU, UK, 7Finnish Environment Institute,
PO Box 140, Helsinki FIN-00251, Finland,
Conservation des Espèces Restauration
et Suivi des Populations-MNHN, Paris
75005, France, 9Department of Biology,
Lund University, Lund SE-223 62, Sweden,
10
Institute for Environmental Studies,
Charles University in Prague, 128 01, Praha
2, Czech Republic, 11Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK,
12
UFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental
Research, Department of Community
Ecology, Halle D-06120, Germany, 13Museu
de Granollers Ciències Naturals, E-08400
Granollers, Spain, 14Statistics Netherlands,
PO Box 24500, 2490HA The Hague, The
Netherlands, 15SOVON Dutch Centre for Field
Ornithology, 6573 DG Beek-Ubbergen, The
Netherlands, 16Department of Environmental
Science and Department of Animal Ecology,
Institute for Water and Wetland Research,
Radboud University Nijmegen, PO Box 9010,
6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands,
little emissions trading there and the odd
voluntary agreement thrown in for good
measure will not be sufficient.
Scientists may argue that it is not
our responsibility anyway and that it is
politicians who are really to blame. The
scientific community can meet next year to
communicate its latest model results and
reiterate how climate change commitments
and economic growth go hand in hand.
Many policymakers (and some scientists)
believe that yet another year will not matter
in the grand scheme of things, but this
overlooks the fundamental tenet of climate
science: emissions are cumulative.
Long-term and end-point targets
(for example, 80% by 2050) have no
scientific basis. What governs future
global temperatures and other adverse
climate impacts are the emissions from
yesterday, today and those released in the
next few years. Delaying an agreement on
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Czech Society for Ornithology, 150 00,
17
Praha 5, Czech Republic, 18Laboratory of
Entomology,Wageningen University, PO
Box 8031, 6700 EH, Wageningen,
The Netherlands.
*e-mail: vincent.devictor@univ-montp2.fr
References
1. Devictor, V. et al. Nature Clim. Change. 2, 121–124 (2012).
2. Hijmans, R. J. et al. Int. J. Clim. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).
3. Hagemeijer, W. J. M. & Blair, M. J. The EBCC Atlas of European
Breeding Birds: Their Distribution and Abundance (T. & A. D.
Poyser, 1997).
4. Settele, J. et al. BioRisk 2, 33–72 (2009).
5. Albert, C. H. et al. Persp. Plant Ecol. Evol. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ppees.2011.04.003 (in the press).
6. Lindström, Å. et al. Ecography http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-
0587.2012.07799.x (in the press).
7. Loarie, S. R. et al. Nature 462, 24–31 (2009).
8. Godet, L., Jaffré, M. & Devictor, V. Biol. Lett. 7, 714–717 (2011).
9. Kampichler, C. et al. PLoS One 7, e35272 (2012).
Acknowledgements
We thank Cécile Albert for stimulating comments on the
importance of intraspecific variability and its consequences.
We also thank Francisco Rodríguez-Sánchez and colleagues
for initiating this thought-provoking discussion.
meaningful cuts to emissions increases the
risk of exposing many already vulnerable
communities to higher temperatures
and worsening climate-related impacts.
Yet, behind the cosy rhetoric of naively
optimistic science and policy, there is little
to suggest that existing mitigation proposals
will deliver anything but rising emissions
over the coming decade or two.
Hope and judgement
There are many reasons why climate science
has become intertwined with politics, to the
extent that providing impartial scientific
analysis is increasingly challenging and
challenged. On a personal level, scientists
are human too. Many have chosen to
research climate change because they
believe there is value in applying scientific
rigour to an important global issue. It is
not surprising then that they also hope
that it is still possible to avoid dangerous
opinion & comment
anthropogenic interference with the
climate system. However, as the remaining
cumulative budget is consumed, so any
contextual interpretation of the science
demonstrates that the threshold of 2 °C is
no longer viable, at least within orthodox
political and economic constraints. Against
this backdrop, unsubstantiated hope
leaves such constraints unquestioned,
while at the same time legitimizing a
focus on increasingly improbable low-
carbon futures and underplaying high-
emission scenarios3,4.
On a professional level, scientists
are seldom trained to engage with
policymaking; where opinions are
encouraged and decisions informed
as much by ideology as by judgement
of the science, economics and so on.
Policymaking is necessarily a messy
process. Scientists, however, often assume
that the most effective way of engaging is
by presenting evidence, without daring
to venture, at least explicitly, broader
academic judgement. Perhaps, for
narrowly defined disciplinary study, this
is entirely appropriate. Yet many highly
respected researchers are emerging with
interdisciplinary expertise. Academic
training has begun to foster the ability of
researchers to embed quantitative analysis
within a wider sociopolitical and economic
context. Nevertheless, reluctance to proffer
academic judgement confidently remains,
particularly when such judgement raises
fundamental questions about the viability
of so-called real-world economics.
Economical with the science
Acknowledging the immediacy and rate
of emission reductions necessary to meet
international commitments on 2 °C
illustrates the scale of the discontinuity
between the science (physical and social)
underpinning climate change and the
economic hegemony. Put bluntly, climate
change commitments are incompatible with
short- to medium-term economic growth
(in other words, for 10 to 20 years)1,5.
Moreover, work on adapting to climate
change suggests that economic growth
cannot be reconciled with the breadth and
rate of impacts as the temperature rises
towards 4 °C and beyond6 — a serious
possibility if global apathy over stringent
mitigation persists. Away from the
microphone and despite claims of ‘green
growth’, few if any scientists working on
climate change would disagree with the
broad thrust of this candid conclusion.
The elephant in the room sits undisturbed
while collective acquiescence and cognitive
dissonance trample all who dare to ask
difficult questions.
640 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 2 | SEPTEMBER 2012 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
We need to understand how we have
arrived at this compliant stasis. Certainly
part of the story stems from how deeply
the tendrils of economics have permeated
into climate science7. Contrary to the claims
of many climate sceptics, in developing
emission scenarios scientists repeatedly
and severely underplay the implications of
their analyses. When it comes to avoiding
a 2 °C rise, ‘impossible’ is translated into
‘difficult but doable’, whereas ‘urgent and
radical’ emerge as ‘challenging’ — all
to appease the god of economics (or,
more precisely, finance). For example,
to avoid exceeding the maximum rate of
emission reduction dictated by economists,
‘impossibly’ early peaks in emissions are
assumed, together with naive notions
about ‘big’ engineering and the deployment
rates of low-carbon infrastructure. More
disturbingly, as emissions budgets dwindle,
so geo-engineering is increasingly proposed
to ensure that the diktat of economists
remains unquestioned.
At the same time as climate change
analyses are being subverted to reconcile
them with the orthodoxy of economic
growth, neoclassical economics has
evidently failed to keep even its own house
in order. This failure is not peripheral. It
is prolonged, deep-rooted and disregards
national boundaries, raising profound issues
about the structures, values and framing of
contemporary society.
A new paradigm
This catastrophic and ongoing failure of
market economics and the laissez-faire
rhetoric accompanying it (unfettered
choice, deregulation and so on) could
provide an opportunity to think differently
about climate change. Early signs of such
a paradigm shift are already evident. As
Alan Greenspan, former head of the US
Federal Reserve and a pivotal figure in
the economic orthodoxy revealed, he was
“in a state of shocked disbelief ” at having
“discovered a flaw in the [free market]
model”8. This is not just a minor flaw; it
undermines a central tenet (self-regulation)
of the laissez-faire ethos. It is to market
economics what Copernican heliocentrism
was to Ptolemaic astronomy.
Reinforcing the view that we may be
on the cusp of a paradigm shift are the
fundamental disagreements between
orthodox economists as to how to respond
to the crisis. This theoretical disarray
has parallels with those rare occasions in
history where established knowledge is
superseded by new ways of thinking and
understanding. Newton, Darwin, Einstein
and Planck all represent such radical
transitions. They are seldom achieved
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
easily and the old guard typically hangs on
kicking furiously to avoid relinquishing its
grip on power. Ultimately, however, such
protestations are futile in the face of the
new insights and new ways of doing things
that emerge with the new paradigm.
It is in this rapidly evolving context
that the science underpinning climate
change is being conducted and its findings
communicated. This is an opportunity
that should and must be grasped. Liberate
the science from the economics, finance
and astrology, stand by the conclusions
however uncomfortable. But this is still not
enough. In an increasingly interconnected
world where the whole — the system —
is often far removed from the sum of
its parts, we need to be less afraid of
making academic judgements. Not
unsubstantiated opinions and prejudice,
but applying a mix of academic rigour,
courage and humility to bring new and
interdisciplinary insights into the emerging
era. Leave the market economists to fight
among themselves over the right price of
carbon — let them relive their groundhog
day if they wish. The world is moving
on and we need to have the audacity
to think differently and conceive of
alternative futures.
Civil society needs scientists to do
science free of the constraints of failed
economics. It also needs us to guard against
playing politics while actively engaging with
the processes of developing policy; this is a
nuanced but nonetheless crucial distinction.
Ultimately, decisions on how to respond
to climate change are the product of many
constituencies contributing to the debate.
Science is important among these and needs
to be communicated clearly, honestly and
without fear. ❐
Kevin Anderson1* and Alice Bows 2 are at 1Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research, School of
Mechanical Civil and Aerospace Engineering,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester
M13 9PL, UK, 2Sustainable Consumption Institute,
School of Mechanical Civil and Aerospace
Engineering, University of Manchester, Oxford
Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
*e-mail: Kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk
References
1. Anderson, K. & Bows, A. Phil. Trans R. Soc. A 369, 20–44 (2011).
2. Bows, A. & Barrett, J. Carbon Manage. 1, 161–175 (2010).
3. Betts, R. A. et al. Phil. Trans R. Soc. A 369, 67–84 (2011).
4. Joshi, M., Hawkins, E., Sutton, R., Lowe, J. & Frame, D. Nature
Clim. Change 1, 407–412 (2011).
5. Anderson, K. & Bows, A. Phil. Trans R. Soc. A
366, 3863–3882 (2008).
6. Smith, J. B. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 4133–4137(2009).
7. Anderson, K. Climate Change in a Myopic World (Tyndall
Centre, 2009).
8. Clark, A. & Treanor, J. Greenspan - I was Wrong about the
Economy. Sort of. The Guardian (24 October, 2008); available via
http://go.nature.com/EZA4Tf