Lorenzoni Irene, Pidgeon Nick F, O'Connor Robert E
Centre for Environmental Risk and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Risk Anal. 2005 Dec;25(6):1387-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00686.x.
The notion of "dangerous climate change" constitutes an important development of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It persists, however, as an ambiguous expression, sustained by multiple definitions of danger. It also implicitly contains the question of how to respond to the complex and multi-disciplinary risk issues that climate change poses. The invaluable role of the climate science community, which relies on risk assessments to characterize system uncertainties and to identify limits beyond which changes may become dangerous, is acknowledged. But this alone will not suffice to develop long-term policy. Decisions need to include other considerations, such as value judgments about potential risks, and societal and individual perceptions of "danger," which are often contested. This article explores links and cross-overs between the climate science and risk communication and perception approaches to defining danger. Drawing upon nine articles in this Special Issue of Risk Analysis, we examine a set of themes: limits of current scientific understanding; differentiated public perceptions of danger from climate change; social and cultural processes amplifying and attenuating perceptions of, and responses to, climate change; risk communication design; and new approaches to climate change decision making. The article reflects upon some of the difficulties inherent in responding to the issue in a coherent, interdisciplinary fashion, concluding nevertheless that action should be taken, while acknowledging the context-specificity of "danger." The need for new policy tools is emphasised, while research on nested solutions should be aimed at overcoming the disjunctures apparent in interpretations of climate change risks.
“危险气候变化”这一概念是1992年《联合国气候变化框架公约》的一项重要发展。然而,它仍然是一个模糊的表述,因对危险的多种定义而持续存在。它还隐含着如何应对气候变化所带来的复杂多学科风险问题这一疑问。气候科学界依靠风险评估来描述系统不确定性并确定变化可能变得危险的界限,其作用至关重要,这一点得到了认可。但仅凭这一点不足以制定长期政策。决策还需要纳入其他考量因素,比如对潜在风险的价值判断,以及社会和个人对“危险”的认知,而这些认知往往存在争议。本文探讨了气候科学与风险沟通及定义危险的认知方法之间的联系与交叉。借助《风险分析》本期特刊中的九篇文章,我们审视了一系列主题:当前科学理解的局限性;公众对气候变化危险的差异化认知;放大和削弱对气候变化的认知及应对的社会和文化过程;风险沟通设计;以及气候变化决策的新方法。本文思考了以连贯的跨学科方式应对该问题所固有的一些困难,不过得出结论认为应采取行动,同时承认“危险”的具体情境性。强调了对新政策工具的需求,而关于嵌套式解决方案的研究应旨在克服气候变化风险解读中明显存在的脱节现象。