Fiches info

This article examines the technocentric bias that characterizes climate mitigation literature, focusing on the reports of the IPCC's Working Group III. This bias stems from structural features of the scientific field that prioritizes innovation, leading to the overrepresentation of technological solutions in climate research. Funding mechanisms further reinforce this tendency by incentivizing collaboration with industrial R&D, creating a self-reinforcing loop in which scientific authority and industrial interests converge. The IPCC's institutional positioning—as a policy-relevant yet politically cautious body—amplifies this dynamic by favoring allegedly “cost-effective” technological pathways that lack practical feasibility.

Critical minerals, which are essential for a range of energy technologies and for the broader economy, have become a major focus in global policy and trade discussions. Price volatility, supply chain bottlenecks and geopolitical concerns make the regular monitoring of their supply and demand extremely vital.

Abstract. We review how the international modelling community, encompassing integrated assessment models, global and regional Earth system and climate models, and impact models, has worked together over the past few decades to advance understanding of Earth system change and its impacts on society and the environment and thereby support international climate policy. We go on to recommend a number of priority research areas for the coming decade, a timescale that encompasses a number of newly starting international modelling activities, as well as the IPCC Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) and the second UNFCCC Global Stocktake. Progress in these priority areas will significantly advance our understanding of Earth system change and its impacts, increasing the quality and utility of science support to climate policy. We emphasize the need for continued improvement in our understanding of, and ability to simulate, the coupled Earth system and the impacts of Earth system change. There is an urgent need to investiga

Daniel P. Aldrich (born 1974) is an academic in the fields of political science, public policy and Asian studies. He is currently full professor of political science and public policy at Northeastern University.[1] Aldrich has held several Fulbright fellowships, including a Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Applied Public Policy (Democratic Resilience) at Flinders University in Australia in 2023,[2] a Fulbright Specialist[3] in Trinidad-Tobago in 2018, a Fulbright research fellowship at the University of Tokyo's Economic's Department for the 2012–2013 academic year, and a IIE Fulbright Dissertation Fellowship in Tokyo in 2002–2003. His research, prompted in part by his own family's experience of Hurricane Katrina,[4] explores how communities around the world respond to and recover from disaster.

The IPBES #PandemicsReport is one of the most scientifically robust examinations of the evidence and knowledge about links between pandemic risk and nature since the COVID-19 pandemic began - with 22 of the world's leading experts from fields as diverse as epidemiology, zoology, public health, disease ecology, comparative pathology, veterinary medicine, pharmacology, wildlife health, mathematical modelling, economics, law, and public policy as authors of the report. The expertise of the 22 authors was further augmented by contributions and knowledge resources from the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, and the World Health Organization - as well as a peer review process.

This Summary for Policymakers (SPM) presents key findings of the Working Group I (WGI) contribution to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)1 on the physical science basis of climate change. The report builds upon the 2013 Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the 2018–2019 IPCC Special Reports2 of the AR6 cycle and incorporates subsequent new evidence from climate science3.

In recent years, governments of several low-income countries have taken decisive action by removing fully or partially user fees in the health sector. In this study, we review recent reforms in six sub-Saharan African countries: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ghana, Liberia, Senegal and Uganda. The review d …