Politics of climate risk management in local government: a case study of the municipality of Stavanger (original) (raw)
Related papers
Risk analysis and climate change
Environmental Politics, 2009
There is an increasing emphasis on risk-based approaches in the scientific and economic assessment of climate change, exemplified by the Stern Report and IPPC 4th Assessment. In the United Kingdom, risk discourse also increasingly dominates environmental policy-making and governance. The use of risk assessment, management and communication practices in climate change governance and policy is critically examined, utilising an interpretation of ‘risk’ as a knowledge practice for informing decision-making and an instrument for governing populations. In elucidating current risk practices, alongside key critiques and varied proposals for revised approaches to risk characterisation, both the capacities and limitations of a risk basis for policy aimed at delivering adaptation and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are examined. While contemporary risk approaches align well with dominant political rationalities in affluent Western democracies, they have serious limitations as a basis for the delivery of aggressive climate policy aims.
SpringerBriefs in applied sciences and technology, 2024
This chapter addresses how public authorities understand climate risks and their consequences in the context of a socio-technical system such as the petroleum industry in Norway. This issue is discussed by selecting Stavanger Municipality, the petroleum capital of Norway, as a case study to explore the local understanding of climate risks, in terms of physical, transition and systemic risks. Stavanger Municipality and its region are experiencing socioeconomic transformations of the main industry, consisting of the redesigning of prevalent system structures and the rebranding of the Municipality from oil to energy capital. This approach is sustained by the introduction of new practices, complying with climate change considerations, without interrupting important systemic functions and services.
Risk Management and Climate Change
2012
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 5 | MAY 2013 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 1 T he scientific understanding of climate change and its impacts has increased dramatically in recent years, but several interacting sources of uncertainty mean that future climate change and its impacts will not be known with precision for the foreseeable future. Some uncertainties involve the path of global socioeconomic development, the way it affects the commitment by countries to use energy-efficient technologies and how greenhouse-gas emissions might respond to specific climaterelated policies. Other uncertainties involve internal variability and incomplete understanding of the climate system and broader Earth-system feedbacks. Still other uncertainties involve the way that changes in climate translate to impacts such as changes in water availability, agricultural production, sea-level rise or heat waves in different parts of the world. A final set involves the evolution of assets at risk (exposure) both in physical and in monetary terms and the level of protection that can be undertaken to reduce their vulnerability to potential losses (that is, adaptation measures). The implication of these interacting sources of uncertainty is that choosing among climate policies is intrinsically an exercise in risk management.
Climate change risk – what is it and how should it be expressed?
Journal of Risk Research, 2019
This paper provides new knowledge on how to understand and describe climate change risk. This type of risk is of the utmost importance for us all, but current approaches for conceptualizing and characterizing it, as for example used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suffer from severe weaknesses, resulting in poor communication and misguidance. Two main problems are that the risk concept is too strongly associated with statistically expected values, and that the risk characterizations fail to integrate probabilities and judgments of the strength of the knowledge supporting these. The present paper points to and discusses these weaknesses. It shows how a solid risk science foundation can be formed, which clarifies the meaning of key climate change risk concepts and supports and improves the evidence-informed communication and decision-making. Specifically, the paper provides insights on the nexus between climate change risk, uncertainties and knowledge, including the potential for surprises, as well as the links between risk and vulnerability (resilience). Recommendations are provided on how to assess uncertainties in relation to risk, using precise and imprecise probabilities, combining these with strength of knowledge judgement, and establishing scientific processes to scrutinize the underlying knowledges basis with respect to potential surprises.
A Conceptual Tool for Climate Change Risk Assessment
Earth Interactions, 2014
This study develops a new conceptual tool to explore the potential societal consequences of climate change. The conceptual tool delineates three quasi-independent factors that contribute to the societal consequences of climate change: how climate changes; the sensitivity of physical systems, biological resources, and social institutions to climate change; and the degree of human dependence on those systems, resources, and institutions. This conceptual tool, as currently developed, is not predictive, but it enables the exploration of the dependence of climate change risks on key contributing factors. In exploring a range of plausible behaviors for these factors and methods for their synthesis, the authors show that plausible assumptions lead to a wide range in potential societal consequences of climate change. This illustrates that the societal consequences of climate change are currently difficult to constrain and that high-consequence climate change outcomes are not necessarily low...
Defining and experiencing dangerous climate change
Climatic Change, 2004
Understanding what constitutes dangerous climate change is of critical importance for future concerted action (Schneider, 2001, 2002). To date separate scientific and policy discourses have proceeded with competing and somewhat arbitrary definitions of danger based on a variety of assumptions and assessments generally undertaken by ‘experts’. We argue that it is not possible to make progress on defining dangerous climate change, or in developing sustainable responses to this global problem, without recognising the central role played by social or individual perceptions of danger. There are therefore at least two contrasting perspectives on dangerous climate change, what we term ‘external’ and ‘internal’ definitions of risk. External definitions are usually based on scientific risk analysis, performed by experts, of system characteristics of the physical or social world. Internal definitions of danger recognise that to be real, danger has to be either experienced or perceived – it is the individual or collective experience or perception of insecurity or lack of safety that constitutes the danger. A robust policy response must appreciate both external and internal definitions of danger.
The social amplification/attenuation of risk framework: application to climate change
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2011
The social experience of risk is not confined to the technical definition of risk, that is, the product of probability and magnitude. What human beings perceive as threat to their well-being and how they evaluate probabilities and magnitudes of unwanted consequences is codetermined by values, attitudes, social influences, and cultural identity. This article introduces the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) and applies it to climate change. The SARF is based on the thesis that events pertaining to hazards interact with psychological, social, institutional, and cultural processes in ways that can heighten or attenuate individual and social perceptions of risk and shape risk behavior. Drawing upon the concept of social amplification of risk, this article investigates the mechanisms of amplification and attenuation in the climate change debate: it focuses first on the micro-sociological and psychological literature on amplification and attenuation of individual responses (including behavior) in relation to climate change; and second on the application of functional resonance and common pool concepts to the intensity of societal concern and action, interpreted in the light of the SARF.
What Lies Beneath: The understatement of existential climate risk
Human-induced climate change is an existential risk to human civilisation: an adverse outcome that will either annihilate intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential, unless carbon emissions are rapidly reduced. Special precautions that go well beyond conventional risk management practice are required if the increased likelihood of very large climate impacts — known as “fat tails” — are to be adequately dealt with. The potential consequences of these lower-probability, but higher-impact, events would be devastating for human societies. The bulk of climate research has tended to underplay these risks, and exhibited a preference for conservative projections and scholarly reticence, although increasing numbers of scientists have spoken out in recent years on the dangers of such an approach. Climate policymaking and the public narrative are significantly informed by the important work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, IPCC reports also tend toward reticence and caution, erring on the side of “least drama”, and downplaying the more extreme and more damaging outcomes. Whilst this has been understandable historically, given the pressure exerted upon the IPCC by political and vested interests, it is now becoming dangerously misleading with the acceleration of climate impacts globally. What were lower-probability, higher-impact events are now becoming more likely. This is a particular concern with potential climatic tipping points — passing critical thresholds which result in step changes in the climate system — such as the polar ice sheets (and hence sea levels), and permafrost and other carbon stores, where the impacts of global warming are non-linear and difficult to model with current scientific knowledge. However the extreme risks to humanity which the tipping points represent, justify strong precautionary management. Under-reporting on these issues is irresponsible, contributing to the failure of imagination that is occurring today in our understanding of, and response to, climate change. If climate policymaking is to be soundly based, a reframing of scientific research within an existential risk-management framework is now urgently required. This must be taken up not just in the work of the IPCC, but also in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations if we are to address the real climate challenge. Current processes will not deliver either the speed or the scale of change required.