Climate stabilization wedge

Last updated
Wedge game intro movie screenshot.JPG

Climate stabilization wedges are used to describe possible climate change mitigation scenarios and their impact, through the grouping of different types of interventions into "wedges" representing potential decreases in CO2 emissions . When stacked on top of each other, wedges form a "stabilization triangle" that represents the estimated amount of carbon that needs to be removed from the atmosphere to flatten carbon emissions [1] and prevent atmospheric carbon from doubling. [2] This framework is used to organize complex information about mitigation strategies for presentation to policy makers and the public, with the goal of stimulating both technological change and policy actions to deploy precommercial and existing technologies. [3]

Contents

The approach presents global warming as a problem which can be attacked using commercially available technologies to reduce CO2 emissions . Selecting a set of mitigation strategies to create a stabilization triangle is a planning framework for identifying possible interventions for the reduction of emissions. The objective is to stabilize CO
2 concentrations under 500 ppm over fifty years, by choosing strategies for mitigation as represented by wedges. [3] [4] [1] Each wedge represents 25 gigatons of avoided carbon emissions over a fifty-year period. [5] [6] [2]

This approach to presenting complex information about mitigation was introduced in 2004 by Princeton University researchers Stephen Pacala and Robert H. Socolow. [1] [2] [7] In 2004, Pacala and Socolow estimated that seven wedges worth of improvements would be needed to mitigate climate change by 2054, if serious actions were taken immediately. [8] In 2011, they increased their estimate from seven to nine wedges, given the ongoing increase in emissions since the original 2004 paper. [8] Some researchers have estimated that the number of wedges needed to mitigate climate change may be much higher. [6] [9] [4] A 2020 update by the Carbon Mitigation Initiative projected mitigation efforts to 2060 with eight wedges. [1] Both the urgency and the difficulty of achieving substantial changes are emphasized. [4]

In 2021, a summary of progress towards 16 climate mitigation strategies, expressed in terms of stabilization wedges, reported that while some areas have seen substantial progress (e.g. improving vehicle efficiency) others have seen little or negative progress (e.g. loss of tropical tree cover in Asia and Africa). Net progress as of 2021 is estimated to be only about 1.5 ± 0.9 of the originally-estimated seven wedges. [10]

Concept

A stabilization wedge is an action which incrementally reduces projected emissions. The name is derived from the triangular shape of the gap between reduced and unreduced emissions trajectories when graphed over time. For example, a reduction in electricity demand due to increased efficiency means that less electricity needs to be generated and thus fewer emissions need to be produced. The term originates in the Stabilization Wedge Game.

As a reference unit, a stabilization wedge is equal to the following examples of mitigation initiatives: deployment of two hundred thousand 10 MW wind turbines; completely halting the deforestation and planting of 300 million hectares of trees; the increase in the average energy efficiency of all the world's buildings by 25 percent;[ when? ] or the installation of carbon capture and storage facilities in 800 large coal-fired power plants. [11] Pacala and Socolow proposed in their work, Stabilization Wedges, that seven wedges are required to be delivered by 2050 – at current technologies – to make a significant impact on the mitigation of climate change. [12] There are, however, sources that estimate the need for 14 wedges because Pacala and Socolow's proposal would only stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at current levels but not the atmospheric concentration, which is increasing by more than 2 ppm/year. [11] In 2011, Socolow revised their earlier estimate to nine. [13]

Scenario

Emissions of CO
2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing ever since the Industrial Revolution. If the trend continues to hold, emissions will double by 2055. To prevent the worst consequences of global warming, scientists recommend freezing and reducing net global emissions immediately. [14]

Stabilization triangle

External videos
Nuvola apps kaboodle.svg “The Stabilization Triangle: Tackling the Greenhouse Gas Problem with Today's Technologies”, High Meadows Environmental Institute.

If global emissions of CO
2 are graphed for the next 50 years, the difference between the business as usual scenario and the flat path forms a triangle. This triangle is known as the stabilization triangle. Pacala and Socolow initially divided this hypothetical triangle into seven stabilization wedges, which represent different initiatives that must be taken to reduce emissions. When speaking of different strategies to reduce emissions, the language "to reduce one wedge's worth," is often employed. Reducing a projected fourteen gigatons of carbon emissions into seven wedges in a stabilization triangle makes the task easier to conceptualize. [4] [14]

"A wedge represents an activity that reduces emissions to the atmosphere that starts at zero today and increases to 1 giga tonne per year of reduced carbon emissions in 50 years, a cumulative total of 25 giga tonnes of emission reduction over 50 years." [5]

Wedge strategies

Pacala and Socolow originally presented the wedges concept in Science in 2004. In that paper they identified fifteen different wedge strategies. [4] [2] [15] Regarding the specific number, Socolow says that he and Pacala didn't include all of the possibilities, but that "It was a matter of rhetoric to stop at 15. And exhaustion. There was nothing magic about 15." [16]

Wedges tend to fall into three categories: dealing with energy demand, dealing with energy supply, and dealing with CO
2 capture and storage. Each wedge represents a billion metric tons of carbon per year. [4] As of 2020 the CMI website presents the fifteen strategies and groups them into nine categories, as follows: [17]

  1. Efficiency
  2. Fuel switching
  3. Carbon capture and storage
  4. Forest and agricultural soils
  5. Nuclear
  6. Wind
  7. Solar
  8. Biomass fuels
  9. Natural sinks

In addition to limiting emissions of CO
2, such changes offer public health cobenefits such as reduced air pollution, enhanced fitness, and regulation of infectious disease. [18]

Like many other discussions of global climate change, the majority of Pacala and Socolow's wedges focus on improvements in energy efficiency. A couple address limiting consumption, and none consider population reduction. [2] Yet economic and demographic growth have been identified as fundamental drivers of global climate change. [19] Of the fifteen wedges developed by Pacala and Socolow, only one—halving the number of miles driven by the world's automobile fleet—might be considered a "demand reduction" wedge. [2] Other researchers have discussed the potential for a range of mitigation strategies including modified diet and population growth rate. [20] [21] [22]

Wedge estimates

As of 2004, Pacala and Socolow estimated that seven wedges worth of improvements would be needed to mitigate climate change, if serious actions were immediately taken. [8] In 2011 they released a new estimate in which they suggested that the number of necessary wedges had increased from seven to nine. This increase reflected factors such as the ongoing increase in emissions since the original 2004 paper. [8]

Some researchers have argued that Pacala and Socolow's estimates of the number of climate stabilization wedges needed are optimistic. Martin I. Hoffert was one of the first scientists to predict global warming due to carbon dioxide, while working at Exxon in the 1980s. [23] Hoffert suggested in a 2010 Science article that Pacala and Socolow's 2004 estimates were too low, and that some of their assumptions about declining carbon-to-energy ratios were being countered by increases in natural gas, oil and coal production. Hoffert suggested that as many as 18-25 wedges might be needed. [6] He argues that a massive mobilization, comparable to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program, is needed to bring needed technologies from being technically possible to operationally possible. [24]

“We have to start working immediately to implement those elements that we know how to implement and we need to start implementing these longer-term programs.” [4]

Similarly, in June 2008, Joseph Romm argued in Nature magazine that "If we are to have confidence in our ability to stabilize carbon dioxide levels below 450 p.p.m. emissions must average less than 5 GtC per year over the century. This means accelerating the deployment of the... wedges so they begin to take effect in 2015 and are completely operational in much less time than originally modelled by Socolow and Pacala." [9] Romm emphasized the importance of shifting national and global policy from longer-term to immediate strategies, and the urgency of deploying existing low-carbon technologies. [9]

Stabilization Wedges Game

An example of a self-made Wedge Game board used by the Houston Advanced Research Center. HARC wedge game.jpg
An example of a self-made Wedge Game board used by the Houston Advanced Research Center.

Stabilization wedges are the basis of a team-based exercise called the Stabilization Wedge Game. This game has become popular as a tool for schools and businesses to educate players and discuss global warming mitigation. The Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) permits anyone to use the game and make use of their materials, provided that they share the results with CMI.

The idea of stabilization wedges is sometimes presented in the form of a team-based exercise called the Stabilization Wedges Game. [25] Because of the simplicity of the wedge game, it has become popular as a communication tool for global warming mitigation. It is used in a variety of arenas and by a variety of players including businessmen, politicians, teachers, and students. David Hawkins, climate director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, puts the ease of use of the Wedge Game this way:

The wedges concept is sort of the iPod of climate policy analysis... It's an understandable, attractive package that people can fill with their own content." [16]

Educational Use

The Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) permits anyone to use the game and make use of their materials, provided that they share the results with CMI. Because it is so widely accessible, it has become included in certain high school curricula. The Keystone Center has deemed the Stabilization Wedge Game to fulfill the following National Education Standards: S1, S6, LA4, LA5, C4, C5, E1, G1, G5, and WH9. [26]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science hosted a conference for educators at the Hilton in San Francisco in 2007. Collaborating with AAAS were the National Science Teachers Association and the United Educators of San Francisco (representing the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers). Socolow and Hotinski personally presented the Stabilization Wedge concept at the event. [27]

Business Use

The Stabilization Wedge Game is also used as a centerpiece for business seminars. Business executives played the game at as seminar held by the Sustainable Enterprise Academy at York University in Toronto. [28]

Criticism

Some scientists estimate that substantially higher numbers of wedges may be needed than Pacala and Socolow originally proposed. [6] [9] The game's underlying premise that humanity has the tools and technologies to halt climate change may therefore be overly optimistic.

The Wedge Game has been criticized as being too simple, especially regarding the economic aspects of global warming mitigation. The materials provided by CMI only attach one, two, or three dollar signs to each wedge as a broad estimate of the expense of each option. [14] Richard G. Richels, a senior engineer at the Electric Power Research Institute, says that the lack of economic precision in the game could create misconceptions:

We have to find out what it's going to cost to make it affordable. By not including the cost issue, people come away from this thinking it will be a piece of cake. It's going to require some serious bucks. If the environment is priceless, we should be willing to pay some serious bucks to protect it. [16]

A final criticism is that the Wedge Game focuses on technological fixes rather than fundamentally challenging the endless growth economy that is at the heart of global climate change. [2]

History

The idea of climate stabilization wedges was developed as part of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) at Princeton Environmental Institute (now the High Meadows Environmental Institute). [29] [30] The project was funded by Ford Motor Company between 2000 and 2009 and has been receiving funding from BP since 2000. [31] [32]

Related Research Articles

Environmental finance is a field within finance that employs market-based environmental policy instruments to improve the ecological impact of investment strategies. The primary objective of environmental finance is to regress the negative impacts of climate change through pricing and trading schemes. The field of environmental finance was established in response to the poor management of economic crises by government bodies globally. Environmental finance aims to reallocate a businesses resources to improve the sustainability of investments whilst also retaining profit margins.

Climate engineering is a term used for both carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management, also called solar geoengineering, when applied at a planetary scale. However, they have very different geophysical characteristics which is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change no longer uses this overarching term. Carbon dioxide removal approaches are part of climate change mitigation. Solar geoengineering involves reflecting some sunlight back to space. All forms of geoengineering are not a standalone solution to climate change, but need to be coupled with other forms of climate change mitigation. Another approach to geoengineering is to increase the Earth's thermal emittance through passive radiative cooling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change mitigation</span> Actions to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change

Climate change mitigation is action to limit climate change. This action either reduces emissions of greenhouse gases or removes those gases from the atmosphere. The recent rise in global temperature is mostly due to emissions from burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. There are various ways how mitigation can reduce emissions. One important way is to switch to sustainable energy sources. Other ways are to conserve energy and to increase efficiency. It is possible to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This can be done by enlarging forests, restoring wetlands and using other natural and technical processes. The name for these processes is carbon sequestration. Governments and companies have pledged to reduce emissions to prevent dangerous climate change. These pledges are in line with international negotiations to limit warming.

Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was published in 2007 and is the fourth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which took six years to produce. Contributors to AR4 included more than 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenhouse gas emissions</span> Sources and amounts of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere from human activities

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities intensify the greenhouse effect. This contributes to climate change. Carbon dioxide, from burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, is one of the most important factors in causing climate change. The largest emitters are China followed by the United States. The United States has higher emissions per capita. The main producers fueling the emissions globally are large oil and gas companies. Emissions from human activities have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 50% over pre-industrial levels. The growing levels of emissions have varied, but have been consistent among all greenhouse gases. Emissions in the 2010s averaged 56 billion tons a year, higher than any decade before. Total cumulative emissions from 1870 to 2017 were 425±20 GtC from fossil fuels and industry, and 180±60 GtC from land use change. Land-use change, such as deforestation, caused about 31% of cumulative emissions over 1870–2017, coal 32%, oil 25%, and gas 10%.

Carbon leakage a concept to quantify an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in one country as a result of an emissions reduction by a second country with stricter climate change mitigation policies. Carbon leakage is one type of spill-over effect. Spill-over effects can be positive or negative; for example, emission reductions policy might lead to technological developments that aid reductions outside of the policy area. Carbon leakage is defined as "the increase in CO2 emissions outside the countries taking domestic mitigation action divided by the reduction in the emissions of these countries." It is expressed as a percentage, and can be greater or less than 100%. There is no consensus over the magnitude of long-term leakage effects.

This is a list of climate change topics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia</span> Release of gases from Australia which contribute to global warming

Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia totalled 533 million tonnes CO2-equivalent based on greenhouse gas national inventory report data for 2019; representing per capita CO2e emissions of 21 tons, three times the global average. Coal was responsible for 30% of emissions. The national Greenhouse Gas Inventory estimates for the year to March 2021 were 494.2 million tonnes, which is 27.8 million tonnes, or 5.3%, lower than the previous year. It is 20.8% lower than in 2005. According to the government, the result reflects the decrease in transport emissions due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, reduced fugitive emissions, and reductions in emissions from electricity; however, there were increased greenhouse gas emissions from the land and agriculture sectors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon dioxide removal</span> Removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide through human activity

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a process in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by deliberate human activities and durably stored in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. This process is also known as carbon removal, greenhouse gas removal or negative emissions. CDR is more and more often integrated into climate policy, as an element of climate change mitigation strategies. Achieving net zero emissions will require first and foremost deep and sustained cuts in emissions, and then—in addition—the use of CDR. In the future, CDR may be able to counterbalance emissions that are technically difficult to eliminate, such as some agricultural and industrial emissions.

The climate change policy of the United States has major impacts on global climate change and global climate change mitigation. This is because the United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world after China, and is among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person in the world. In total, the United States has emitted over a trillion metric tons of greenhouse gasses, more than any country in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economics of climate change mitigation</span> Part of the economics of climate change related to climate change mitigation

The economics of climate change mitigation is a contentious part of climate change mitigation – action aimed to limit the dangerous socio-economic and environmental consequences of climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change scenario</span> Hypothetical representation of potential future conditions

A climate change scenario is a hypothetical representation of potential future conditions based on a "consistent set of assumptions about key driving forces". Closely related to this is the concept of pathways, which are more concrete and action-oriented compared to scenarios. Scientists create scenarios and pathways to explore the long-term effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation. In other words, scenarios help everyone understand what the future may hold. For example, scenarios can show which decisions will have the most meaningful effects on mitigation and adaptation. Certain parameters influence what the scenarios look like. Three important parameters are population growth, economic activity and development of new technologies. Economic and energy models can quantify the effects of these parameters. Examples for such models include World3 or the POLES models.

Stephen W. Pacala is the Frederick D. Petrie Professor in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Princeton University. He has worked on climate change, population ecology, and global interactions between the biosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere. Since 2021, he has been a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon budget</span> Limit on carbon dioxide emission for a given climate impact

A carbon budget is a concept used in climate policy to help set emissions reduction targets in a fair and effective way. It examines the "maximum amount of cumulative net global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions that would result in limiting global warming to a given level". It can be expressed relative to the pre-industrial period. In this case, it is the total carbon budget. Or it can be expressed from a recent specified date onwards. In that case it is the remaining carbon budget.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C</span> Special climate change report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15) was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on 8 October 2018. The report, approved in Incheon, South Korea, includes over 6,000 scientific references, and was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries. In December 2015, the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference called for the report. The report was delivered at the United Nations' 48th session of the IPCC to "deliver the authoritative, scientific guide for governments" to deal with climate change. Its key finding is that meeting a 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) target is possible but would require "deep emissions reductions" and "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society". Furthermore, the report finds that "limiting global warming to 1.5 °C compared with 2 °C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being" and that a 2 °C temperature increase would exacerbate extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, coral bleaching, and loss of ecosystems, among other impacts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture</span> Agricultures effects on climate change

The amount of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is significant: The agriculture, forestry and land use sector contribute between 13% and 21% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture contributes towards climate change through direct greenhouse gas emissions and by the conversion of non-agricultural land such as forests into agricultural land. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane make up over half of total greenhouse gas emission from agriculture. Animal husbandry is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenhouse gas emissions by China</span> Emissions of gases harmful to the climate from China

China's greenhouse gas emissions are the largest of any country in the world both in production and consumption terms, and stem mainly from coal burning, including coal power, coal mining, and blast furnaces producing iron and steel. When measuring production-based emissions, China emitted over 14 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2eq of greenhouse gases in 2019, 27% of the world total. When measuring in consumption-based terms, which adds emissions associated with imported goods and extracts those associated with exported goods, China accounts for 13 gigatonnes (Gt) or 25% of global emissions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IPCC Sixth Assessment Report</span> Intergovernmental report on climate change

The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the sixth in a series of reports which assess scientific, technical, and socio-economic information concerning climate change. Three Working Groups covered the following topics: The Physical Science Basis (WGI); Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (WGII); Mitigation of Climate Change (WGIII). Of these, the first study was published in 2021, the second report February 2022, and the third in April 2022. The final synthesis report was finished in March 2023.

High Meadows Environmental Institute at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey is an interdisciplinary center for environmental research that studies effects of and solutions to climate change and other environmental threats. The International Center for Climate Governance named the Princeton Environmental Institute the second-highest climate change think tank in the global category for 2012, following the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Kibert, Charles J. (12 April 2022). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN   978-1-119-70645-8.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arnold, Denis G. (31 March 2011). The Ethics of Global Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-1-139-50100-2.
  3. 1 2 Gallagher, Kelly Sims; Holdren, John P.; Sagar, Ambuj D. (1 November 2006). "Energy-Technology Innovation". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 31 (1): 193–237. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144321 . ISSN   1543-5938.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kolbert, Elizabeth (1 May 2005). "The Climate of Man, Part III: What Can be Done?". The New Yorker.
  5. 1 2 "The Stabilisation wedge theory". 21st Century Challenges. Royal Geographical Society. 27 August 2015.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Hoffert, Martin I. (10 September 2010). "Farewell to Fossil Fuels?". Science. 329 (5997): 1292–1294. doi:10.1126/science.1195449. PMID   20829473. S2CID   206529026.
  7. ↑ "Carbon Mitigation Initiative". Cmi.princeton.edu. 2014-01-08. Retrieved 2014-02-14.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Socolow, Robert (27 September 2011). "Wedges reaffirmed". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Romm, Joseph (8 July 2008). "Cleaning up on carbon" (PDF). Nature. Vol. 2, no. July. Retrieved 26 June 2023.
  10. ↑ Johnson, Nathan; Gross, Robert; Staffell, Iain (1 June 2021). "Stabilisation wedges: measuring progress towards transforming the global energy and land use systems". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (6): 064011. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abec06. hdl: 10044/1/87398 . ISSN   1748-9326. S2CID   233777592 . Retrieved 26 June 2023.
  11. 1 2 Dawson, Brian; Spannagle, Matt (2008). The Complete Guide to Climate Change . Oxon: Routledge. pp.  283. ISBN   978-0415477895.
  12. ↑ Pacala, S.; Socolow, R. (2004-08-13). "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies". Science. 305 (5686): 968–972. Bibcode:2004Sci...305..968P. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.642.8472 . doi:10.1126/science.1100103. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   15310891. S2CID   2203046.
  13. ↑ Socolow, Robert (September 27, 2011). "Wedges reaffirmed - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved 2018-08-27.
  14. 1 2 3 Hotinski, Roberta (January 2007). "Stabilization Wedges: A Concept & Game" (PDF). Carbon Mitigation Initiative. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 17, 2008. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
  15. ↑ Stephen Pacala; Robert Socolow (2004-08-13). "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies". Science. 305 (5686): 968–972. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.642.8472 . doi:10.1126/science.1100103. PMID   15310891. S2CID   2203046.
  16. 1 2 3 Darren Samuelsohn. "Princeton profs drive 'wedges' into policy debate". Environment & Energy Publishing. Retrieved 2007-08-17.
  17. ↑ "Stabilization Wedges Introduction – Carbon Mitigation Initiative". cmi.princeton.edu. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
  18. ↑ Patz, Jonathan; Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid; Gibbs, Holly; Woodruff, Rosalie (1 April 2008). "Health Impact Assessment of Global Climate Change: Expanding on Comparative Risk Assessment Approaches for Policy Making". Annual Review of Public Health. 29 (1): 27–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090750 . ISSN   0163-7525. PMID   18173382.
  19. ↑ Jorgenson, AK; Fiske, S; Hubacek, K; Li, J; McGovern, T; Rick, T; Schor, JB; Solecki, W; York, R; Zycherman, A (January 2019). "Social science perspectives on drivers of and responses to global climate change". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change. 10 (1): e554. doi:10.1002/wcc.554. PMC   6360453 . PMID   30774719.
  20. ↑ Grosso, Stephen J Del; Cavigelli, Michel A (December 2012). "Climate stabilization wedges revisited: can agricultural production and greenhouse‐gas reduction goals be accomplished?". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 10 (10): 571–578. doi: 10.1890/120058 . ISSN   1540-9295.
  21. ↑ Johnson, Jeremiah; Chertow, Marian (1 April 2009). "Climate Stabilization Wedges in Action: A Systems Approach to Energy Sustainability for Hawaii Island". Environmental Science & Technology. 43 (7): 2234–2240. doi:10.1021/es801700a. ISSN   0013-936X. PMID   19452868.
  22. ↑ Choi, BJJ; Chen, CL (1 March 2022). "The Triple Bottom Line and Stabilization Wedges: A Framework for Perioperative Sustainability". Anesthesia and Analgesia. 134 (3): 475–485. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000005890. PMC   9556165 . PMID   35180164.
  23. ↑ Pattee, Emma (2 July 2021). "The scientists hired by big oil who predicted the climate crisis long ago". The Guardian.
  24. ↑ Denning, Steve (July 21, 2019). "Implementing The One Viable Solution To Climate Change". Forbes.
  25. ↑ "Stabilization wedges: A concept and game" (PDF). University of Colorado Boulder. Retrieved 26 June 2023.
  26. ↑ "CSI: Climate Status Investigations (grades 9-12)". The Keystone Center. Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
  27. ↑ "Communicating and Learning About Global Climate Change" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-02-24. Retrieved 2007-08-17.
  28. ↑ Boyce, Nell (2007-06-25). "Climate Game Gives Real Options to Save World". National Public Radio . Retrieved 2007-08-16.
  29. ↑ Durkee, Robert K. (5 April 2022). The New Princeton Companion. Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-21044-5 . Retrieved 1 September 2022.
  30. ↑ Shanahan, Mike (13 August 2004). "Technology exists to halt climate change, say scientists". National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
  31. ↑ Kelly, Morgan (December 13, 2018). "Photo exhibition explores 25 years of Princeton environmental education, research". Princeton University. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
  32. ↑ "Carbon Mitigation Initiative". Cmi.princeton.edu. 2015-04-08. Archived from the original on 2016-03-25. Retrieved 2016-04-11.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.