climate change research paper questions

Explore your training options in 10 minutes Get Started

Graduate Stories
Partner Spotlights
Bootcamp Prep
Bootcamp Admissions
University Bootcamps
Coding Tools
Software Engineering
Web Development
Data Science
Tech Guides
Tech Resources
Career Advice
Online Learning
Internships
Apprenticeships
Tech Salaries
Associate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
University Admissions
Best Schools
Certifications
Bootcamp Financing
Higher Ed Financing
Scholarships
Financial Aid
Best Coding Bootcamps
Best Online Bootcamps
Best Web Design Bootcamps
Best Data Science Bootcamps
Best Technology Sales Bootcamps
Best Data Analytics Bootcamps
Best Cybersecurity Bootcamps
Best Digital Marketing Bootcamps
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Browse All Locations
Digital Marketing
Machine Learning
See All Subjects
Bootcamps 101
Full-Stack Development
Career Changes
View all Career Discussions
Mobile App Development
Cybersecurity
Product Management
UX/UI Design
What is a Coding Bootcamp?
Are Coding Bootcamps Worth It?
How to Choose a Coding Bootcamp
Best Online Coding Bootcamps and Courses
Best Free Bootcamps and Coding Training
Coding Bootcamp vs. Community College
Coding Bootcamp vs. Self-Learning
Bootcamps vs. Certifications: Compared
What Is a Coding Bootcamp Job Guarantee?
How to Pay for Coding Bootcamp
Ultimate Guide to Coding Bootcamp Loans
Best Coding Bootcamp Scholarships and Grants
Education Stipends for Coding Bootcamps
Get Your Coding Bootcamp Sponsored by Your Employer
GI Bill and Coding Bootcamps
Tech Intevriews
Our Enterprise Solution
Connect With Us
Publication
Reskill America
Partner With Us

Resource Center
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree

The Top 10 Most Interesting Climate Change Research Topics

Finishing your environmental science degree may require you to write about climate change research topics. For example, students pursuing a career as environmental scientists may focus their research on environmental-climate sensitivity or those studying to become conservation scientists will focus on ways to improve the quality of natural resources.

Climate change research paper topics vary from anthropogenic climate to physical risks of abrupt climate change. Papers should focus on a specific climate change research question. Read on to learn more about examples of climate change research topics and questions.

Find your bootcamp match

What makes a strong climate change research topic.

A strong climate change research paper topic should be precise in order for others to understand your research. You must use research methods to find topics that discuss a concern about climate issues. Your broader topic should be of current importance and a well-defined discourse on climate change.

Tips for Choosing a Climate Change Research Topic

Research what environmental scientists say. Environmental scientists study ecological problems. Their studies include the threat of climate change on environmental issues. Studies completed by these professionals are a good starting point.
Use original research to review articles for sources. Starting with a general search is a good place to get ideas. However, as you begin to refine your search, use original research papers that have passed through the stage of peer review.
Discover the current climatic conditions of the research area. The issue of climate change affects each area differently. Gather information on the current climate and historical climate conditions to help bolster your research.
Consider current issues of climate change. You want your analyses on climate change to be current. Using historical data can help you delve deep into climate change effects. First, however, it needs to back up climate change risks.
Research the climate model evaluation options. There are different approaches to climate change evaluation. Choosing the right climate model evaluation system will help solidify your research.

What’s the Difference Between a Research Topic and a Research Question?

A research topic is a broad area of study that can encompass several different issues. An example might be the key role of climate change in the United States. While this topic might make for a good paper, it is too broad and must be narrowed to be written effectively.

A research question narrows the topic down to one or two points. The question provides a framework from which to start building your paper. The answers to your research question create the substance of your paper as you report the findings.

How to Create Strong Climate Change Research Questions

To create a strong climate change research question, start settling on the broader topic. Once you decide on a topic, use your research skills and make notes about issues or debates that may make an interesting paper. Then, narrow your ideas down into a niche that you can address with theoretical or practical research.

2. Economic Impact of Climate Change

Climate can have a negative effect on both local and global economies. While the costs may vary greatly, even a slight change could cost the United States a loss in the Global Domestic Product (GDP). For example, rising sea levels may damage the fiber optic infrastructure the world relies on for trade and communication.

3. Solutions for Reducing the Effect of Future Climate Conditions

Solutions for reducing the effect of future climate conditions range from reducing the reliance on fossil fuels to reducing the number of children you have. Some of these solutions to climate change are radical ideas and may not be accepted by the general population.

4. Federal Government Climate Policy

The United States government’s climate policy is extensive. The climate policy is the federal government’s action for climate change and how it hopes to make an impact. It includes adopting the use of electric vehicles instead of gas-powered cars. It also includes the use of alternative energy systems such as wind energy.

5. Understanding of Climate Change

Understanding climate change is a broad climate change research topic. With this, you can introduce different research methods for tracking climate change and showing a focused effect on specific areas, such as the impact on water availability in certain geographic areas.

6. Carbon Emissions Impact of Climate Change

Carbon emissions are a major factor in climate change. Due to the greenhouse effect they cause, the world is seeing a higher number of devastating weather events. An increase in the number and intensity of tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornados are some of the results.

7. Evidence of Climate Change

There is ample evidence of climate change available, thanks to the scientific community. However, some of these implications of climate change are hotly contested by those with poor views about climate scientists. Proof of climate change includes satellite images, ice cores, and retreating glaciers.

8. Cause and Mitigation of Climate Change

The causes of climate change can be either human activities or natural causes. Greenhouse gas emissions are an example of how human activities can alter the world’s climate. However, natural causes such as volcanic and solar activity are also issues. Mitigation plans for these effects may include options for both causes.

9. Health Threats and Climate Change

Climate change can have an adverse effect on human health. The impacts on health from climate change can include extreme heat, air pollution, and increasing allergies. The CDC warns these changes can cause respiratory threats, cardiovascular issues, and heat-related illnesses.

10. Industrial Pollution and the Effects of Climate Change

Just as car emissions can have an adverse effect on the climate, so can industrial pollution. It is one of the leading factors in greenhouse gas effects on average temperature. While the US has played a key role in curtailing industrial pollution, other countries need to follow suit to mitigate the negative impacts it causes.

Climate Change Research Questions

What are some mitigation and adaptation to climate change options for farmers?
How do alternative energy sources play a role in climate change?
Do federal policies on climate change help reduce carbon emissions?
What impacts of climate change affect the environment?
Do climate change and social movements mean the end of travel?

Choosing the Right Climate Change Research Topic

Choosing the correct climate change research paper topic takes continuous research and refining. Your topic starts as a general overview of an area of climate change. Then, after extensive research, you can narrow it down to a specific question.

You need to ensure that your research is timely, however. For example, you don’t want to address the effects of climate change on natural resources from 15 or 20 years ago. Instead, you want to focus on views about climate change from resources within the last five years.

Climate Change Research Topics FAQ

A climate change research paper has five parts, beginning with introducing the problem and background before moving into a review of related sources. After reviewing, share methods and procedures, followed by data analysis . Finally, conclude with a summary and recommendations.

A thesis statement presents the topic of your paper to the reader. It also helps you as you begin to organize your paper, much like a mission statement. Therefore, your thesis statement may change during writing as you start to present your arguments.

According to the US Forest Service, climate change issues are related to topics regarding forest management, biodiversity, and species distribution. Climate change is a broad focus that affects many topics.

To write a research paper title, a good strategy is not to write the title right away. Instead, wait until the end after you finish everything else. Then use a short and to-the-point phrase that summarizes your document. Use keywords from the paper and avoid jargon.

About us: Career Karma is a platform designed to help job seekers find, research, and connect with job training programs to advance their careers. Learn about the CK publication .

What's Next?

Get matched with top bootcamps

Ask a question to our community, take our careers quiz.

Climate Change Topics for Short Essays

Perhaps, your educator has asked you to write a short essay on climate change. Maybe you’re yet to decide what to write about because every topic you think about seems to have been written about. In that case, use this list of climate change topics for inspiration. You can write about one of these topics or develop it to make it more unique.

How climate change is responsible for the disappearing rainforest
The effects of global warming on air quality within the urban areas
Global warming and greenhouse emissions- Possible health risks
Is climate change responsible for irregular weather patterns?
How has climate change affected the food chain?
The negative effects of climate change on human wellbeing
How global warming affects agriculture
How climate change works
Why is climate change dangerous to human health?
How to minimize global warming effects on human health
How global warming affects the healthcare
Effects of climate change of life quality in rural and urban areas
How warmer temperatures support allergy-related illnesses
How climate change is a risk to life on earth
How climate change and natural disasters correlate
How climate change affects the population of the earth
How climate change relates to global warming
How global warming has caused extreme heating in most urban areas
How wildfires relate to climate change
How ocean acidification and climate change affect the world’s habitat

These climate change essay topics cover different aspects of human activities and their effects on the earth’s ecosystem. As such, writing a research paper or essay on any of these topics requires extensive research and analysis of information. That’s the only way you can come up with a solid paper that will impress the educator to award you the top grade.

Climate Change Issues that Make for Good Topics

Maybe you want to research issues that relate to climate change. Most people may have not considered such issues but they are worthy of climate change debate topics. In that case, consider these issues when choosing your climate topics for papers and essays.

Climate change and threat to natural biodiversity are equally important
Climate change in Miami and Saudi Arabia- How the effects compare
Climate change as a human activity’s effect on the environment
Preventing climate change by protecting forests
Climate change in China- How the country has declined to head to the global call about saving Mother Nature
Common causes of climate change
Common effects of climate change
The definition of climate change
What is anthropogenic climate change
Describe climate change
What drives climate change?
Renewable energy sources and climate change
Human and economics induced climate change
Climate change biology
Climate change and business
Science, Spin, and climate change
Climate change- How global warming affects populations
Climate change and social concepts
Extreme weather and climate change- How they relate
Global warming as a complex issue in climate change

These are great climate change topics for research papers and essays. However, writing about these topics requires extensive research. You should also be ready to spend energy and time finding relevant and latest sources of information before you write about these topics.

Interesting Climate Change Topics for Papers and Essays

Perhaps, you want to write an essay or paper about something interesting. In that case, consider this list of interesting climate change research paper topics.

Climate change across the globe- What experts say
Development, climate change, and disaster reduction
Critical review- Climate change and agriculture
Schools should include climate change as a subject in geography courses
Consumption and climate change- How the wind blows in Indiana
How the United Nations responds to climate change
Snowpack and climate change
How climate change threatens global security
The effects of climate change on coastal areas’ tourism
How climate change relates to Queensland Australia’s floods
How climate change affects the tourism and hospitality industry
Possible strategies for addressing the effects of climate change on urban areas
How climate change affects indigenous people
How to avoid the threats of climate change
How climate change affects coral triangle turtles
Climate change drivers in the Asian countries
Economic discourse analysis methodology in climate change
How climate change affects New Hampshire businesses
How climate change affects the life of an individual
The economic cost of the effects of climate change

These are fantastic climate change paper topics to explore. Nevertheless, you must be ready to research your topic extensively before you start writing your academic paper or essay.

Major Topics on Climate Change for Academic Writing

Perhaps, you’re looking for topics related to climate change that you write major papers about. In that case, you should consider these global climate change topics.

Early science on climate change
How the world can manage the effects of climate change
Environmental issues relating to climate change
Views comparison about the climate change problem
Asset-based community development and climate change
Experts’ evaluation of climate change
How science affects climate change
How climate change affects the ocean life
Scotland’s vulnerability to climate change
How energy conservation can solve the climate change problem
How climate change affects the world economy
International collaboration and climate change
International relations view on climate change
How transportation affects climate change
Climate change and technology
Climate change policies and human rights
Climate change from an anthropological perspective
Climate change as an international security issue
Role of the United Nations in addressing climate change
Climate change and pollution

This category has some of the best climate change thesis topics. That’s because most people will be interested in reading papers on such topics due to their global perspectives. Nevertheless, you should prepare to spend a significant amount of time researching and writing about any of these topics on climate change.

Climate Change Topics for Presentation

Perhaps, you want to write papers on topics related to climate change for presentation purposes. In that case, you need topics that most people can resonate with. Here is a list of topics about climate change that will interest most people.

How can humans stop global warming in the next ten years
Could humans have stopped global warming a decade ago?
How has the environment changed over the years and how has this change caused global warming?
How did the Obama administration try to limit climate change?
What is the influence of chemical engineering on global warming?
How is urbanization connected to climate change?
Theories that explain why some nations ignore climate change
How global warming affects the rising sea levels
How anthropogenic and natural climate change differ
How the war against terrorism differs from the war on climate change
How atmospheric change influences global climate change
Negative effects of global climate change on Minnesota
The greenhouse effect and ozone depletion
How greenhouse affects the earth’s environment
How can individuals reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses
How climate change will affect humans in their lifetime
What are the social, physical, and economic effects of climate change
Problems and solutions to climate change on the Pacific Ocean
How climate change relates to species’ extinction
How the phenomenon of denying climate change affects animals

This list prepared by our research helpers has some of the best essay topics on climate change. Pick one of these ideas, research it, and then compose a winning paper.

Make PhD experience your own

Climate Change Science

An analysis of some key questions.

The warming of the Earth has been the subject of intense debate and concern for many scientists, policy-makers, and citizens for at least the past decade. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions , a new report by a committee of the National Research Council, characterizes the global warming trend over the last 100 years, and examines what may be in store for the 21st century and the extent to which warming may be attributable to human activity.

RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

Press Release
Earth Sciences — Climate, Weather and Meteorology
Environment and Environmental Studies — Climate Change

Suggested Citation

National Research Council. 2001. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10139. Import this citation to: Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager

Publication Info

Paperback: 978-0-309-07574-9
Ebook: 978-0-309-18335-2

What is skim?

The Chapter Skim search tool presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter. You may select key terms to highlight them within pages of each chapter.

Copyright Information

The National Academies Press (NAP) has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center's Marketplace service to offer you a variety of options for reusing NAP content. Through Marketplace, you may request permission to reprint NAP content in another publication, course pack, secure website, or other media. Marketplace allows you to instantly obtain permission, pay related fees, and print a license directly from the NAP website. The complete terms and conditions of your reuse license can be found in the license agreement that will be made available to you during the online order process. To request permission through Marketplace you are required to create an account by filling out a simple online form. The following list describes license reuses offered by the NAP through Marketplace:

Republish text, tables, figures, or images in print
Post on a secure Intranet/Extranet website
Use in a PowerPoint Presentation
Distribute via CD-ROM

Click here to obtain permission for the above reuses. If you have questions or comments concerning the Marketplace service, please contact:

Marketplace Support International +1.978.646.2600 US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415 E-mail: [email protected] marketplace.copyright.com

To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected] .

What is a prepublication?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book. We publish prepublications to facilitate timely access to the committee's findings.

What happens when I pre-order?

The final version of this book has not been published yet. You can pre-order a copy of the book and we will send it to you when it becomes available. We will not charge you for the book until it ships. Pricing for a pre-ordered book is estimated and subject to change. All backorders will be released at the final established price. As a courtesy, if the price increases by more than $3.00 we will notify you. If the price decreases, we will simply charge the lower price. Applicable discounts will be extended.

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

What is an ebook.

An ebook is one of two file formats that are intended to be used with e-reader devices and apps such as Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

A PDF is a digital representation of the print book, so while it can be loaded into most e-reader programs, it doesn't allow for resizable text or advanced, interactive functionality. The eBook is optimized for e-reader devices and apps, which means that it offers a much better digital reading experience than a PDF, including resizable text and interactive features (when available).

Where do I get eBook files?

eBook files are now available for a large number of reports on the NAP.edu website. If an eBook is available, you'll see the option to purchase it on the book page.

View more FAQ's about Ebooks

Types of Publications

Consensus Study Report: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

News from the Columbia Climate School

Six Tough Questions About Climate Change

NASA's supercomputer model created this simulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Photo: NASA/GSFC

Whenever the focus is on climate change, as it is right now at the Paris climate conference , tough questions are asked concerning the costs of cutting carbon emissions, the feasibility of transitioning to renewable energy, and whether it’s already too late to do anything about climate change. We posed these questions to Laura Segafredo , manager for the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project . The decarbonization project comprises energy research teams from 16 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitting countries that are developing concrete strategies to reduce emissions in their countries. The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project is an initiative of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network .

Will the actions we take today be enough to forestall the direct impacts of climate change? Or is it too little too late?

There is still time and room for limiting climate change within the 2˚C limit that scientists consider relatively safe, and that countries endorsed in Copenhagen and Cancun. But clearly the window is closing quickly. I think that the most important message is that we need to start really, really soon, putting the world on a trajectory of stabilizing and reducing emissions. The temperature change has a direct relationship with the cumulative amount of emissions that are in the atmosphere, so the more we keep emitting at the pace that we are emitting today, the more steeply we will have to go on a downward trajectory and the more expensive it will be.

Today we are already experiencing an average change in global temperature of .8˚. With the cumulative amount of emissions that we are going to emit into the atmosphere over the next years, we will easily reach 1.5˚ without even trying to change that trajectory.

Assateague Island National Seashore where the potential for storm surges and flooding is higher due to sea level rise.

Two degrees might still be doable, but it requires significant political will and fast action. And even 2˚ is a significant amount of warming for the planet, and will have consequences in terms of sea level rise, ecosystem changes, possible extinctions of species, displacements of people, diseases, agriculture productivity changes, health related effects and more. But if we can contain global warming within those 2˚, we can manage those effects. I think that’s really the message of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports—that’s why the 2˚ limit was chosen, in a sense. It’s a level of warming where we can manage the risks and the consequences. Anything beyond that would be much, much worse.

Will taking action make our lives better or safer, or will it only make a difference to future generations?

It will make our lives better and safer for sure. For example, let’s think about what it means to replace a coal power plant with a cleaner form of energy like wind or solar. People that live around the coal power plant are going to have a lot less air pollution, which means less asthma for children, and less time wasted because of chronic or acute diseases. In developing countries, you’re talking about potentially millions of lives saved by replacing dirty fossil fuel based power generation with clean energy.

It will also have important consequences for agricultural productivity. There’s a big risk that with the concentration of carbon and other gases in the atmosphere, agricultural yields will be reduced, so preventing that means more food for everyone.

Light rail in Seattle. Photo: Michael B.

And then think about cities. If you didn’t have all that pollution from cars, we could live in cities that are less noisy, where the air’s much better, and have potentially better transportation. We could live in better buildings where appliances are more efficient. And investing in energy efficiency would basically leave more money in our pockets. So there are a lot of benefits that we can reap almost immediately, and that’s without even considering the biggest benefit—leaving a planet in decent condition for future generations.

How will measures to cut carbon emissions affect my life in terms of cost?

To build a climate resilient economy, we need to incorporate the three pillars of energy system transformation that we focus on in all the deep decarbonization pathways. Number one is improving energy efficiency in every part of the economy—buildings, what we use inside buildings, appliances, industrial processes, cars…everything you can think of can perform the same service, but using less energy. What that means is that you will have a slight increase in the price in the form of a small investment up front, like insulating your windows or buying a more efficient car, but you will end up saving a lot more money over the life of the equipment in terms of decreased energy costs.

Tehachapi wind farm, CA. Photo: Stan Shebs

The second pillar is making electricity, the power sector, carbon-free by replacing dirty power generation with clean power sources. That’s clearly going to cost a little money, but those costs are coming down so quickly. In fact there are already a lot of clean technologies that are at cost parity with fossil fuels— for example, onshore wind is already as competitive as gas—and those costs are only coming down in the future. We can also expect that there are going to be newer technologies. But in any event, the fact that we’re going to use less power because of the first pillar should actually make it a wash in terms of cost.

The Australian deep decarbonization teams have estimated that even with the increased costs of cleaner cars, and more efficient equipment for the home, etc., when the power system transitions to where it’s zero carbon, you still have savings on your energy bills compared to the previous situation.

The third pillar that we think about are clean fuels, essentially zero-carbon fuels. So we either need to electrify everything— like cars and heating, once the power sector is free of carbon—or have low-carbon fuels to power things that cannot be electrified, such as airplanes or big trucks. But once you have efficiency, these types of equipment are also more efficient, and you should be spending less money on energy.

Saving money depends on the three pillars together, thinking about all this as a whole system.

Given that renewable sources provide only a small percentage of our energy and that nuclear power is so expensive, what can we realistically do to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible?

There are a lot of studies that have been done for the U.S. and for Europe that show that it’s very realistic to think of a power sector that is almost entirely powered by renewables by 2050 or so. It’s actually feasible—and this considers all the issues with intermittency, dealing with the networks, and whatever else represents a technological barrier—that’s all included in these studies. There’s also the assumption that energy storage, like batteries, will be cheaper in the future.

That is the future, but 2050 is not that far away. 35 years for an energy transition is not a long time. It’s important that this transition start now with the right policy incentives in place. We need to make sure that cars are more efficient, that buildings are more efficient, that cities are built with more public transit so less fossil fuels are needed to transport people from one place to another.

I don’t want people to think that because we’re looking at 2050, that means that we can wait—in order to be almost carbon free by 2050, or close to that target, we need to act fast and start now.

Will the remedies to climate change be worse than the disease? Will it drive more people into poverty with higher costs?

I actually think the opposite is true. If we just let climate go the way we are doing today by continuing business as usual, that will drive many people into poverty. There’s a clear relationship between climate change and changing weather patterns, so more significant and frequent extreme weather events, including droughts, will affect the livelihoods of a large portion of the world population. Once you have droughts or significant weather events like extreme precipitation, you tend to see displacements of people, which create conflict, and conflict creates disease.

Syrian Kurdish refugees enter Turkey. Photo: EC/ECHO

I think Syria is a good example of the world that we might be going towards if we don’t do anything about climate change. Syria is experiencing a once-in-a-century drought, and there’s a significant amount of desertification going on in those areas, so you’re looking at more and more arid areas. That affects agriculture, so people have moved from the countryside to the cities and that has created a lot of pressure on the cities. The conflict in Syria is very much related to the drought, and the drought can be ascribed to climate change.

And consider the ramifications of the Syrian crisis: the refugee crisis in Europe, terrorism, security concerns and 7 million-plus people displaced. I think that that’s the world that we’re going towards. And in a world like that, when you have to worry about people being safe and alive, you certainly cannot guarantee wealth and better well-being, or education and health.

So finally, doing what needs to be done to combat climate change all comes down to political will?

The majority of the American public now believe that climate change is real, that it’s human induced and that we should do something about it.

But there’s seems to be a disconnect between what these numbers seem to indicate and what the political discourse is like… I can’t understand it, yet it seems to be the situation.

I’m a little concerned because other more immediate concerns like terrorism and safety always come first. Because the effects of climate change are going to be felt a little further away, people think that we can always put it off. The Department of Defense, its top-level people, have made the connection between climate change and conflict over the next few decades. That’s why I would argue that Syria is actually a really good example to remind us that if we are experiencing security issues today, it’s also because of environmental problems. We cannot ignore them.

The reality is that we need to do something about climate change fast—we don’t have time to fight this over the next 20 years. We have to agree on this soon and move forward and not waste another 10 years debating.

Read the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project 2015 report . The full report will be released Dec. 2.

Laura Segafredo was a senior economist at the ClimateWorks Foundation, where she focused on best practice energy policies and their impact on emission trajectories. She was a lead author of the 2012 UNEP Emissions Gap Report and of the Green Growth in Practice Assessment Report. Before joining ClimateWorks, Segafredo was a research economist at Electricité de France in Paris.

She obtained her Ph.D. in energy studies and her BA in economics from the University of Padova (Italy), and her MSc in economics from the University of Toulouse (France).

Solar Geoengineering To Cool the Planet: Is It Worth the Risks?

Army Veteran and Environmental Advocate: A Sustainability Science Student’s Journey to Columbia

Sustainable Development Program Hosts Annual Alumni Career Conversations Panel

Celebrate over 50 years of Earth Day with us all month long! Visit our Earth Day website for ideas, resources, and inspiration.

Many find low wages prohibits saving. Changing personal vehicles and heating systems costs. Will there be financial support for people on low wages?

The energy innovation and dividend bill has already been introduced in the house. It’s a carbon fee and dividend plan. The carbon fee rises every year and 100% of it goes back directly into the hands of the people by a check each month. This helps offset rising costs, especially for lower income folks.

81 cosponsors now Tell your rep in Congress to support this HR 763!

Results show that yields for all four crops grown at levels of carbon dioxide remaining at 2000 levels would experience severe declines in yield due to higher temperatures and drier conditions. But when grown at doubled carbon dioxide levels, all four crops fare better due to increased photosynthesis and crop water productivity, partially offsetting the impacts from those adverse climate changes. For wheat and soybean crops, in terms of yield the median negative impacts are fully compensated, and rice crops recoup up to 90 percent and maize up to 60 percent of their losses.

When is Russia, China, and Mexico going to work toward a better environment instead of the United States trying to do it all? They continue to pollute like they have for years. Who is going to stop the deforestation of the rain forest?

I’m curious if climate change has any effect on seismic activity. It seems with ice melting on the poles and increasing water dispersement and temp of that water, it might cause the plates to shift to compensate. Is there any evidence of this?

this isn’t because of doldrums or jet streams. the pattern keeps having the same action. we must save trees :3

How long do we have, before it’s too late?

Climate Change isn’t nearly as big of a deal as everyone makes it out to be. Meaning no disrespect to the author, but I really don’t see how this is something that we should be worrying about given that one human recycling their soda cans or getting their old phone refurbished rather than dumping it isn’t going to restore the polar ice caps or lower the temperature of the planet. And supposedly agriculture is the problem, but I point-blank refuse to give up my beef night, or bacon and eggs for breakfast on Saturdays. Also, nuclear power is supposed to be a solution, but the building of the power plants is going to add more greenhouse gases than the plant will take out. The whole planet needs a reality check. Earth isn’t going to explode because it’s slightly hotter than it used to be!

Thank you and I need in your help

Get the Columbia Climate School Newsletter →

Researching Climate Change

Climate change research involves numerous disciplines of Earth system science as well as technology, engineering, and programming. Some major areas of climate change research include water, energy, ecosystems, air quality, solar physics, glaciology, human health, wildfires, and land use.

To have a complete picture of how the climate changes and how these changes affect the Earth, scientists make direct measurements of climate using weather instruments. They also look at proxy data that gives us clues about climate conditions from prehistoric times. And they use models of the Earth system to predict how the climate will change in the future.

Measurements of modern climate change

Because climate describes the weather conditions averaged over a long period of time (typically 30 years), much of the same information gathered about weather is used to research climate. Temperature is measured every day at thousands of locations around the world. This data is used to calculate average global temperatures . Changes in temperature patterns are a strong indicator of how much the climate is changing. Because we have thousands of temperature measurements, we know that record high temperatures are increasing across the globe, which is a sign that the climate is warming. Climatologists also look at changes in precipitation, the length and frequency of drought, as well as the number of days that rivers are at flood stage to understand how the climate is changing. Winds and other direct measures of climate contribute to climate change research as well.

This map shows the location of weather stations across the Earth. Continuous data from thousands of stations is important for climate change research.

Using proxy data to understand climate change in the past

Throughout Earth's 4.6 billion years, the climate has changed drastically, including periods that were much colder and much warmer than the climate today. But how do we know about the climate from prehistoric times ? Researchers decipher clues within the Earth to help reconstruct past environments based on our understanding of environments today. Proxy data can take the form of fossils, sediment layers, tree rings , coral, and ice cores. These proxies contain evidence of past environments. For example, marine fossils and ocean seafloor sediment preserved in rock layers from around 80 million years ago (the Cretaceous Period) indicate that North America was mostly covered in water. The high sea levels were due to a much warmer climate when all of the polar ice sheets had melted. We also find fossil vegetation and pollen records indicating that forests covered the polar regions during this same time period. The existence of multiple types of proxy data from different locations, often from overlapping time periods, strengthens our understanding of past climates.

This is an image of an ice core drill and an ice core sample being examined by a researcher in the Arctic.

Ice core drilling in the Arctic provides proxy evidence of paleoclimate conditions.

National Snow and Ice Data Center

Using models to project future climate change

Scientists use models of the Earth to figure out how climate will likely change in the future. These models, which are simulations of Earth, include equations that describe everything from how the winds blow to how sea ice reflects sunlight and how forests take up carbon dioxide. In-depth knowledge of how each part of the Earth functions is needed to write the equations that represent each part within the model. Understanding climate change in both the present and the past helps to create computational models that can predict how the climate system might change in the future.

While scientists work hard to ensure that climate models are as accurate as possible, the models are unable to predict exactly how the climate will change in the future because some things are unknown, namely how much humans will change (or not change) behaviors that contribute to climate warming. Scientists run the models with different scenarios to account for a range of possibilities. For example, running the models to show how the climate will respond if we reduce fossil fuel emissions by different amounts can help us prepare for the many impacts that a changing climate has on the Earth.

There are three images: the first shows the Earth covered in hexagon shaped grids; the second shows the atmospheric conditions within three of the hexagon shaped areas above the surface; the third shows a close up of one of the hexagon shaped areas and the smaller grid coordinates within it.

Climate models keep track of how parameters change from place to place using a grid pattern on the Earth’s surface. The environmental conditions within each hexagon-shaped area are programmed into the model. More detailed models have smaller hexagons.

Studying the impacts of climate change

From monitoring changes in tropical coral reefs to changes in glacial ice, keeping track of how climate change is affecting the planet is important for adapting to the future. Scientists who monitor the environment report stronger and more frequent storms, changing weather patterns, a longer growing season in some locations, and changes in the distribution of plants and migratory animals. Monitoring how climate change is affecting our world can help identify new threats to human health as the ranges of insect-borne diseases change and as drought-prone regions expand.

Many different areas of research, from meteorology to oceanography, epidemiology to agriculture, and even fields such as sociology and economics, have a role to play in terms of researching both how the climate is changing and the impacts of climate change.

This is a map of the US showing that the majority of states have a longer growing season, with California and Arizona with the largest increase, and more of an increase in the west in general. Georgia and Alabama are the only states showing a decrease in growing season length.

The average length of the growing season in the lower 48 states has increased by almost two weeks since the late 1800s, a result of the changing climate. Researchers study how this change in the growing season impacts humans and the Earth. Credit: EPA

How Climate Works
History of Climate Science Research
Investigating Past Climates
Climate Modeling
Fast Computers and Complex Climate Models
Visualizing Weather and Climate
IPCC: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
From Dog Walking To Weather And Climate
Satellite Signals from Space: Smart Science for Understanding Weather and Climate

Loading metrics

Open Access

Climate change mitigation and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence and research gaps

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Global Centre for Environment and Energy, Ahmedabad University, Ahmedabad, India

Roles Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Roles Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Climate Economics and Risk Management, Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

Minal Pathak,
Shaurya Patel,
Shreya Some

Published: March 4, 2024

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000366
Reader Comments

Citation: Pathak M, Patel S, Some S (2024) Climate change mitigation and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence and research gaps. PLOS Clim 3(3): e0000366. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000366

Editor: Jamie Males, PLOS Climate, UNITED KINGDOM

Copyright: © 2024 Pathak et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Never in the past three decades have the interlinkages between sustainable development and climate change been more pressing. The projected date when the remaining carbon budget will be exhausted if continuing at the current rate of emissions [ 1 ] is estimated to be around 2030- which also coincides with the timeline for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Recent global assessments clearly show the collective global performance on the targets relating to climate change, biodiversity and SDGs is abysmally poor [ 2 , 3 ]. Urgent efforts are needed to achieve both deep and rapid emissions reductions and to meet the SDGs to set the world on a pathway towards sustainable development.

The appreciation of interconnections between climate change and equity and sustainable development is not recent. In 1992, Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was restructured with a mandate to assess cross-cutting economic and other issues related to climate change including placing socio-economic perspectives in the context of sustainable development. IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1995 explicitly highlighted the different starting points of countries, trade-offs between economic growth and sustainability, distributional impacts of mitigation and adaptation actions and issues of intertemporal equity. This understanding has further deepened since then. Successive IPCC reports have highlighted the implications of efforts aimed at achieving targets under Climate Action (SDG 13) on SDGs [ 2 , 4 , 5 ]. There is now more evidence to show synergies of several climate actions with SDGs outweigh the trade-offs [ 6 ] Such actions include active transport, passive building design, clean energy, circular economy and urban green and blue infrastructure ( Fig 1 ) [ 7 ].

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000366.g001

A quick literature search on Scopus for papers focusing on climate change mitigation and SDGs showed 433 papers (Scopus search using search strings for each individual SDGs, for example: (TITLE-ABS-KEY ("SDG 1" OR "SDG1") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ("Climate") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ("mitigation" OR "mitigate"))). SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and 15 (Life on Land) were the most studied while SDGs 4 (Quality Education), 5 (Gender Equality), 10 (Reduced inequality) and 16 (Peace, Justice and strong institutions) received less attention.

Despite numerous studies, there’s limited evidence of the SDGs being perceived as a valuable tool for making decisions regarding climate action. Firstly, many of the existing studies highlight the potential of mitigation actions supporting SDG achievement through theoretical or modelled methods with few empirical studies demonstrating ex-post evaluation of specific interventions. In particular, there is limited literature on trade-offs and understanding of distributional effects for specific groups [ 8 ]. Secondly, a study on mapping SDG interactions of mitigation actions would not necessarily reveal the full picture. For example, urban public transport could show potential synergies with multiple SDGs however, it wouldn’t necessarily provide evidence on whether benefits could accrue to the most vulnerable groups. Similarly, a new urban transit system could have potential synergies with SDGs 3, 6, 9 and 11, however, this would fail to capture the near-term trade-offs e.g. relocation or costs or emissions.

It becomes more challenging when a particular action can result in mixed impacts, presenting both synergies and trade-offs across indicators within the same SDG. For example, while renewable energy can create green employment opportunities (synergy SDG 8 Target 8.5), it remains uncertain whether these jobs will ensure a safe and secure working environment for all workers throughout the supply chain (trade-off SDG 8, target 8.8). Mitigation options often work across sectors and systems and such interactions are not yet fully dealt with in existing studies.

Additionally, there are gaps in studies and available data for various crucial indicators worldwide, [ 6 ] which complicates the comprehensive assessment of comparing these key indicators across different countries, projects or entities. For instance, the Sustainable Development Report 2023 (Includes time-series data for 122 SDG indicators (out of 169 indicators) for 193 UN member states.) which measures progress across indicators for UN member states compiles data for 3 indicators to construct the index for SDG 13—all of which are related to emissions. Adaptation-related indicators are missing. Finally, studies do not cover temporal and spatial dimensions or the status of these interactions for alternate warming scenarios.

What does this mean for the scientific community?

Addressing the gaps identified presents an opportunity to enhance our understanding of progress towards SDGs and reduce missed opportunities [ 9 , 10 ]. Action that takes into account co-impacts can increase efficiency, reduce costs and support early and ambitious climate action, particularly in developing countries where there are simultaneous development priorities [ 11 ].

A business-as-usual approach to understanding mitigation SDG interactions has made progress but this is not enough. Data, indicators and methodologies, resources, the huge scope of SDGs, limitations of capturing non-measurable development dimensions and capacity constraints remain major challenges for in-depth research in this area [ 12 , 13 ]. New research therefore must focus on the SDGs and targets that have received limited attention and find ways to generate and report data ensuring access and transparency. Where specific data is not available, alternative approaches are needed for e.g. establishing reliable assumptions for utilizing proxy data through expert engagement. Developing indices specific to each goal and setting up reporting guidelines is essential for comparing progress. Failure to report the complete set of indicators limits comparability across goals and targets, and risks missing key priority areas.

Future research needs to focus on comprehensive assessments. For example, demonstrating how, where and to what speed and scale the implementation of a particular intervention resulted in synergies or trade-offs and whether these impacts are sustained. Similarly, going beyond acknowledging trade-offs towards a deeper understanding of what the trade-offs are, for which groups and whether and how these were resolved particularly in relation to questions around power and politics. In-depth studies require both time and resources. Funding needs to be directed to interdisciplinary research as well as building capacity of researchers to undertake such assessments. Quantitative studies involving new tools or modeling exercises, if complemented by qualitative approaches, can deliver more useful insights on synergies and trade-offs, particularly in situations where data is limited. Research institutions and universities can contribute by creating standardized templates and guidelines, as well as consistently reporting data using these templates.

Climate change mitigation research relies significantly on Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) to provide a comprehensive perspective on the interactions between socio-economic systems and earth systems. Existing models do not fully capture all development dimensions [ 14 ] or climate change adaptation though efforts are underway. Future research can focus on developing SD/G-compatible scenario storylines that prioritize development. More work is needed on variables and assumptions to better incorporate equity and justice issues [ 15 ] Modeling teams need to work closely with experts on various aspects of adaptation and sustainable development, including poverty, urbanisation, human well-being and biodiversity.

In conclusion, research frameworks and practices to assess mitigation SDG interactions are inadequate in their present form. Given the urgency, researchers and funders need to move away from business-as-usual approaches towards more in-depth assessments that significantly advance knowledge.

View Article
Google Scholar
2. IPCC. Climate Change 2023—Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2023 pp. 1–85. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf
3. Sachs JD, Lafortune G, Fuller G, Drumm E. Sustainable Development Report 2023: Implementing the SDG Stimulus. Dublin University Press; 2023 pp. 1–546.
4. IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2018.
5. IPCC. Climate Change 2022—Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2022.
6. United Nations Synergy Solutions for a World in Crisis: Tackling Climate and SDG Action Together. Report on Stregnthening the Evidence Base. USA: United Nations; 2023 pp. 1–100. https://www.saoicmai.in/elibrary/first-global-report-on-climate-and-sdg-synergies.pdf
9. Dubash N, Mitchell C, Boasson EL, Borbor-Cordova MJ, Fifita S, Haites E, et al. National and Sub-national Policies and Institutions. 1st ed. In: Shukla P, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie A, van Diemen R, McCollum D, et al., editors. Climate Change 2022—Mitigation of Climate Change. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2022. pp. 1355–1450.
PubMed/NCBI
15. IPCC. IPCC Workshop on the Use of Scenarios in the Sixth Assessment Report and Subsequent Assessments. Thailand: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2023 pp. 1–76. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2023/07/IPCC_2023_Workshop_Report_Scenarios.pdf

Climate Change - A Global Issue
Dag Hammarskjöld Library
Research Guides
A Global Issue
At the United Nations
Major Reports
Books & Journals
Consulting the Experts
Keeping up to date
Data & Statistics

This site contains links and references to third-party databases, web sites, books and articles. It does not imply the endorsement of the content by the United Nations.

What is climate change?

Background Climate change is an urgent global challenge with long-term implications for the sustainable development of all countries.

Exploring the Topic

Climate.gov NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) maintains this gateway to peer-reviewed information on climate change for various audiences, from the layperson to teachers to scientists to planners and policy makers. Provides access to relevant data sets from a number of agencies, including the National Climatic Data Center and the NOAA Climate Prediction Center.
Eldis resource guide on climate change (IDS) The Eldis website is maintained by the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. It facilitates the sharing of information on development issues by aggregating information materials from reputable sources into the resource guide on climate change. It offers tools to create online communities for development practitioners; several such communities exist to discuss specific aspects of climate change. Eldis topic editors compile email newsletters, so-called reporters, including the “Climate Change and Development” reporter.
IIED - International Institute for Environment and Development Well-established policy research institute that offers an online library of information materials on climate change and related topics, such as energy, biodiversity and forests. Publicizes its research output through email newsletters and on various social media channels.
IISD - International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD offers a searchable and browsable knowledge base of its publications and video on climate change. IISDs LINKAGES reporting services closely monitor major international climate change meetings, including those of the IPCC and under the UNFCCC. IISD publishes the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, hosts the climate-l electronic mailing list and publicizes its work on twitter and Facebook.

Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Watch this video by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to learn more about what is at stake and what actions need to be taken to mitigate the impact of climate change globally.

More videos on other aspects of climate change can be found on the IPCC's YouTube page .

Climate Change FAQs

Check out what questions others have asked about climate change and related issues in Ask DAG , our FAQ database.

Related Research Guides

UN Research Guides on issues related to environment:

Climate Change - A Global Issue by Dag Hammarskjöld Library Last Updated Jan 5, 2024 8886 views this year
UN Documentation: Environment by Dag Hammarskjöld Library Last Updated Dec 29, 2023 6617 views this year

Other resource guides on climate change and related topics:

Peace Palace Library: Environmental Law Starting point for research in the field of International Environmental Law provided by the Peace Palace Library in The Hague.
Next: At the United Nations >>
Last Updated: Jan 5, 2024 5:23 PM
URL: https://research.un.org/en/climate-change

Share full article

The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof

Definitive answers to the big questions.

Credit... Photo Illustration by Andrea D'Aquino

Supported by

By Julia Rosen

Ms. Rosen is a journalist with a Ph.D. in geology. Her research involved studying ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to understand past climate changes.

Published April 19, 2021 Updated Nov. 6, 2021

The science of climate change is more solid and widely agreed upon than you might think. But the scope of the topic, as well as rampant disinformation, can make it hard to separate fact from fiction. Here, we’ve done our best to present you with not only the most accurate scientific information, but also an explanation of how we know it.

How do we know climate change is really happening?

How much agreement is there among scientists about climate change, do we really only have 150 years of climate data how is that enough to tell us about centuries of change, how do we know climate change is caused by humans, since greenhouse gases occur naturally, how do we know they’re causing earth’s temperature to rise, why should we be worried that the planet has warmed 2°f since the 1800s, is climate change a part of the planet’s natural warming and cooling cycles, how do we know global warming is not because of the sun or volcanoes, how can winters and certain places be getting colder if the planet is warming, wildfires and bad weather have always happened. how do we know there’s a connection to climate change, how bad are the effects of climate change going to be, what will it cost to do something about climate change, versus doing nothing.

Climate change is often cast as a prediction made by complicated computer models. But the scientific basis for climate change is much broader, and models are actually only one part of it (and, for what it’s worth, they’re surprisingly accurate ).

For more than a century , scientists have understood the basic physics behind why greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming. These gases make up just a small fraction of the atmosphere but exert outsized control on Earth’s climate by trapping some of the planet’s heat before it escapes into space. This greenhouse effect is important: It’s why a planet so far from the sun has liquid water and life!

However, during the Industrial Revolution, people started burning coal and other fossil fuels to power factories, smelters and steam engines, which added more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Ever since, human activities have been heating the planet.

We know this is true thanks to an overwhelming body of evidence that begins with temperature measurements taken at weather stations and on ships starting in the mid-1800s. Later, scientists began tracking surface temperatures with satellites and looking for clues about climate change in geologic records. Together, these data all tell the same story: Earth is getting hotter.

Average global temperatures have increased by 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.2 degrees Celsius, since 1880, with the greatest changes happening in the late 20th century. Land areas have warmed more than the sea surface and the Arctic has warmed the most — by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit just since the 1960s. Temperature extremes have also shifted. In the United States, daily record highs now outnumber record lows two-to-one.

Where it was cooler or warmer in 2020 compared with the middle of the 20th century

This warming is unprecedented in recent geologic history. A famous illustration, first published in 1998 and often called the hockey-stick graph, shows how temperatures remained fairly flat for centuries (the shaft of the stick) before turning sharply upward (the blade). It’s based on data from tree rings, ice cores and other natural indicators. And the basic picture , which has withstood decades of scrutiny from climate scientists and contrarians alike, shows that Earth is hotter today than it’s been in at least 1,000 years, and probably much longer.

In fact, surface temperatures actually mask the true scale of climate change, because the ocean has absorbed 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases . Measurements collected over the last six decades by oceanographic expeditions and networks of floating instruments show that every layer of the ocean is warming up. According to one study , the ocean has absorbed as much heat between 1997 and 2015 as it did in the previous 130 years.

We also know that climate change is happening because we see the effects everywhere. Ice sheets and glaciers are shrinking while sea levels are rising. Arctic sea ice is disappearing. In the spring, snow melts sooner and plants flower earlier. Animals are moving to higher elevations and latitudes to find cooler conditions. And droughts, floods and wildfires have all gotten more extreme. Models predicted many of these changes, but observations show they are now coming to pass.

There’s no denying that scientists love a good, old-fashioned argument. But when it comes to climate change, there is virtually no debate: Numerous studies have found that more than 90 percent of scientists who study Earth’s climate agree that the planet is warming and that humans are the primary cause. Most major scientific bodies, from NASA to the World Meteorological Organization , endorse this view. That’s an astounding level of consensus given the contrarian, competitive nature of the scientific enterprise, where questions like what killed the dinosaurs remain bitterly contested .

Scientific agreement about climate change started to emerge in the late 1980s, when the influence of human-caused warming began to rise above natural climate variability. By 1991, two-thirds of earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed for an early consensus study said that they accepted the idea of anthropogenic global warming. And by 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a famously conservative body that periodically takes stock of the state of scientific knowledge, concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” Currently, more than 97 percent of publishing climate scientists agree on the existence and cause of climate change (as does nearly 60 percent of the general population of the United States).

So where did we get the idea that there’s still debate about climate change? A lot of it came from coordinated messaging campaigns by companies and politicians that opposed climate action. Many pushed the narrative that scientists still hadn’t made up their minds about climate change, even though that was misleading. Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant, explained the rationale in an infamous 2002 memo to conservative lawmakers: “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly,” he wrote. Questioning consensus remains a common talking point today, and the 97 percent figure has become something of a lightning rod .

To bolster the falsehood of lingering scientific doubt, some people have pointed to things like the Global Warming Petition Project, which urged the United States government to reject the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, an early international climate agreement. The petition proclaimed that climate change wasn’t happening, and even if it were, it wouldn’t be bad for humanity. Since 1998, more than 30,000 people with science degrees have signed it. However, nearly 90 percent of them studied something other than Earth, atmospheric or environmental science, and the signatories included just 39 climatologists. Most were engineers, doctors, and others whose training had little to do with the physics of the climate system.

A few well-known researchers remain opposed to the scientific consensus. Some, like Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, have ties to the fossil fuel industry . Others do not, but their assertions have not held up under the weight of evidence. At least one prominent skeptic, the physicist Richard Muller, changed his mind after reassessing historical temperature data as part of the Berkeley Earth project. His team’s findings essentially confirmed the results he had set out to investigate, and he came away firmly convinced that human activities were warming the planet. “Call me a converted skeptic,” he wrote in an Op-Ed for the Times in 2012.

Mr. Luntz, the Republican pollster, has also reversed his position on climate change and now advises politicians on how to motivate climate action.

A final note on uncertainty: Denialists often use it as evidence that climate science isn’t settled. However, in science, uncertainty doesn’t imply a lack of knowledge. Rather, it’s a measure of how well something is known. In the case of climate change, scientists have found a range of possible future changes in temperature, precipitation and other important variables — which will depend largely on how quickly we reduce emissions. But uncertainty does not undermine their confidence that climate change is real and that people are causing it.

Earth’s climate is inherently variable. Some years are hot and others are cold, some decades bring more hurricanes than others, some ancient droughts spanned the better part of centuries. Glacial cycles operate over many millenniums. So how can scientists look at data collected over a relatively short period of time and conclude that humans are warming the planet? The answer is that the instrumental temperature data that we have tells us a lot, but it’s not all we have to go on.

Historical records stretch back to the 1880s (and often before), when people began to regularly measure temperatures at weather stations and on ships as they traversed the world’s oceans. These data show a clear warming trend during the 20th century.

Global average temperature compared with the middle of the 20th century

+0.75°C

–0.25°

Some have questioned whether these records could be skewed, for instance, by the fact that a disproportionate number of weather stations are near cities, which tend to be hotter than surrounding areas as a result of the so-called urban heat island effect. However, researchers regularly correct for these potential biases when reconstructing global temperatures. In addition, warming is corroborated by independent data like satellite observations, which cover the whole planet, and other ways of measuring temperature changes.

Much has also been made of the small dips and pauses that punctuate the rising temperature trend of the last 150 years. But these are just the result of natural climate variability or other human activities that temporarily counteract greenhouse warming. For instance, in the mid-1900s, internal climate dynamics and light-blocking pollution from coal-fired power plants halted global warming for a few decades. (Eventually, rising greenhouse gases and pollution-control laws caused the planet to start heating up again.) Likewise, the so-called warming hiatus of the 2000s was partly a result of natural climate variability that allowed more heat to enter the ocean rather than warm the atmosphere. The years since have been the hottest on record .

Still, could the entire 20th century just be one big natural climate wiggle? To address that question, we can look at other kinds of data that give a longer perspective. Researchers have used geologic records like tree rings, ice cores, corals and sediments that preserve information about prehistoric climates to extend the climate record. The resulting picture of global temperature change is basically flat for centuries, then turns sharply upward over the last 150 years. It has been a target of climate denialists for decades. However, study after study has confirmed the results , which show that the planet hasn’t been this hot in at least 1,000 years, and probably longer.

Scientists have studied past climate changes to understand the factors that can cause the planet to warm or cool. The big ones are changes in solar energy, ocean circulation, volcanic activity and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And they have each played a role at times.

For example, 300 years ago, a combination of reduced solar output and increased volcanic activity cooled parts of the planet enough that Londoners regularly ice skated on the Thames . About 12,000 years ago, major changes in Atlantic circulation plunged the Northern Hemisphere into a frigid state. And 56 million years ago, a giant burst of greenhouse gases, from volcanic activity or vast deposits of methane (or both), abruptly warmed the planet by at least 9 degrees Fahrenheit, scrambling the climate, choking the oceans and triggering mass extinctions.

In trying to determine the cause of current climate changes, scientists have looked at all of these factors . The first three have varied a bit over the last few centuries and they have quite likely had modest effects on climate , particularly before 1950. But they cannot account for the planet’s rapidly rising temperature, especially in the second half of the 20th century, when solar output actually declined and volcanic eruptions exerted a cooling effect.

That warming is best explained by rising greenhouse gas concentrations . Greenhouse gases have a powerful effect on climate (see the next question for why). And since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been adding more of them to the atmosphere, primarily by extracting and burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, which releases carbon dioxide.

Bubbles of ancient air trapped in ice show that, before about 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was roughly 280 parts per million. It began to rise slowly and crossed the 300 p.p.m. threshold around 1900. CO2 levels then accelerated as cars and electricity became big parts of modern life, recently topping 420 p.p.m . The concentration of methane, the second most important greenhouse gas, has more than doubled. We’re now emitting carbon much faster than it was released 56 million years ago .

30 billion metric tons

Carbon dioxide emitted worldwide 1850-2017

Rest of world

Other developed

European Union

Developed economies

Other countries

United States

E.U. and U.K.

These rapid increases in greenhouse gases have caused the climate to warm abruptly. In fact, climate models suggest that greenhouse warming can explain virtually all of the temperature change since 1950. According to the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assesses published scientific literature, natural drivers and internal climate variability can only explain a small fraction of late-20th century warming.

Another study put it this way: The odds of current warming occurring without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are less than 1 in 100,000 .

But greenhouse gases aren’t the only climate-altering compounds people put into the air. Burning fossil fuels also produces particulate pollution that reflects sunlight and cools the planet. Scientists estimate that this pollution has masked up to half of the greenhouse warming we would have otherwise experienced.

Greenhouse gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide serve an important role in the climate. Without them, Earth would be far too cold to maintain liquid water and humans would not exist!

Here’s how it works: the planet’s temperature is basically a function of the energy the Earth absorbs from the sun (which heats it up) and the energy Earth emits to space as infrared radiation (which cools it down). Because of their molecular structure, greenhouse gases temporarily absorb some of that outgoing infrared radiation and then re-emit it in all directions, sending some of that energy back toward the surface and heating the planet . Scientists have understood this process since the 1850s .

Greenhouse gas concentrations have varied naturally in the past. Over millions of years, atmospheric CO2 levels have changed depending on how much of the gas volcanoes belched into the air and how much got removed through geologic processes. On time scales of hundreds to thousands of years, concentrations have changed as carbon has cycled between the ocean, soil and air.

Today, however, we are the ones causing CO2 levels to increase at an unprecedented pace by taking ancient carbon from geologic deposits of fossil fuels and putting it into the atmosphere when we burn them. Since 1750, carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by almost 50 percent. Methane and nitrous oxide, other important anthropogenic greenhouse gases that are released mainly by agricultural activities, have also spiked over the last 250 years.

We know based on the physics described above that this should cause the climate to warm. We also see certain telltale “fingerprints” of greenhouse warming. For example, nights are warming even faster than days because greenhouse gases don’t go away when the sun sets. And upper layers of the atmosphere have actually cooled, because more energy is being trapped by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere.

We also know that we are the cause of rising greenhouse gas concentrations — and not just because we can measure the CO2 coming out of tailpipes and smokestacks. We can see it in the chemical signature of the carbon in CO2.

Carbon comes in three different masses: 12, 13 and 14. Things made of organic matter (including fossil fuels) tend to have relatively less carbon-13. Volcanoes tend to produce CO2 with relatively more carbon-13. And over the last century, the carbon in atmospheric CO2 has gotten lighter, pointing to an organic source.

We can tell it’s old organic matter by looking for carbon-14, which is radioactive and decays over time. Fossil fuels are too ancient to have any carbon-14 left in them, so if they were behind rising CO2 levels, you would expect the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere to drop, which is exactly what the data show .

It’s important to note that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, it does not cause warming; instead it responds to it . That’s because warmer air holds more moisture, which creates a snowball effect in which human-caused warming allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor and further amplifies climate change. This so-called feedback cycle has doubled the warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

A common source of confusion when it comes to climate change is the difference between weather and climate. Weather is the constantly changing set of meteorological conditions that we experience when we step outside, whereas climate is the long-term average of those conditions, usually calculated over a 30-year period. Or, as some say: Weather is your mood and climate is your personality.

So while 2 degrees Fahrenheit doesn’t represent a big change in the weather, it’s a huge change in climate. As we’ve already seen, it’s enough to melt ice and raise sea levels, to shift rainfall patterns around the world and to reorganize ecosystems, sending animals scurrying toward cooler habitats and killing trees by the millions.

It’s also important to remember that two degrees represents the global average, and many parts of the world have already warmed by more than that. For example, land areas have warmed about twice as much as the sea surface. And the Arctic has warmed by about 5 degrees. That’s because the loss of snow and ice at high latitudes allows the ground to absorb more energy, causing additional heating on top of greenhouse warming.

Relatively small long-term changes in climate averages also shift extremes in significant ways. For instance, heat waves have always happened, but they have shattered records in recent years. In June of 2020, a town in Siberia registered temperatures of 100 degrees . And in Australia, meteorologists have added a new color to their weather maps to show areas where temperatures exceed 125 degrees. Rising sea levels have also increased the risk of flooding because of storm surges and high tides. These are the foreshocks of climate change.

And we are in for more changes in the future — up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit of average global warming by the end of the century, in the worst-case scenario . For reference, the difference in global average temperatures between now and the peak of the last ice age, when ice sheets covered large parts of North America and Europe, is about 11 degrees Fahrenheit.

Under the Paris Climate Agreement, which President Biden recently rejoined, countries have agreed to try to limit total warming to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, since preindustrial times. And even this narrow range has huge implications . According to scientific studies, the difference between 2.7 and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will very likely mean the difference between coral reefs hanging on or going extinct, and between summer sea ice persisting in the Arctic or disappearing completely. It will also determine how many millions of people suffer from water scarcity and crop failures, and how many are driven from their homes by rising seas. In other words, one degree Fahrenheit makes a world of difference.

Earth’s climate has always changed. Hundreds of millions of years ago, the entire planet froze . Fifty million years ago, alligators lived in what we now call the Arctic . And for the last 2.6 million years, the planet has cycled between ice ages when the planet was up to 11 degrees cooler and ice sheets covered much of North America and Europe, and milder interglacial periods like the one we’re in now.

Climate denialists often point to these natural climate changes as a way to cast doubt on the idea that humans are causing climate to change today. However, that argument rests on a logical fallacy. It’s like “seeing a murdered body and concluding that people have died of natural causes in the past, so the murder victim must also have died of natural causes,” a team of social scientists wrote in The Debunking Handbook , which explains the misinformation strategies behind many climate myths.

Indeed, we know that different mechanisms caused the climate to change in the past. Glacial cycles, for example, were triggered by periodic variations in Earth’s orbit , which take place over tens of thousands of years and change how solar energy gets distributed around the globe and across the seasons.

These orbital variations don’t affect the planet’s temperature much on their own. But they set off a cascade of other changes in the climate system; for instance, growing or melting vast Northern Hemisphere ice sheets and altering ocean circulation. These changes, in turn, affect climate by altering the amount of snow and ice, which reflect sunlight, and by changing greenhouse gas concentrations. This is actually part of how we know that greenhouse gases have the ability to significantly affect Earth’s temperature.

For at least the last 800,000 years , atmospheric CO2 concentrations oscillated between about 180 parts per million during ice ages and about 280 p.p.m. during warmer periods, as carbon moved between oceans, forests, soils and the atmosphere. These changes occurred in lock step with global temperatures, and are a major reason the entire planet warmed and cooled during glacial cycles, not just the frozen poles.

Today, however, CO2 levels have soared to 420 p.p.m. — the highest they’ve been in at least three million years . The concentration of CO2 is also increasing about 100 times faster than it did at the end of the last ice age. This suggests something else is going on, and we know what it is: Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases that are heating the planet now (see Question 5 for more details on how we know this, and Questions 4 and 8 for how we know that other natural forces aren’t to blame).

Over the next century or two, societies and ecosystems will experience the consequences of this climate change. But our emissions will have even more lasting geologic impacts: According to some studies, greenhouse gas levels may have already warmed the planet enough to delay the onset of the next glacial cycle for at least an additional 50,000 years.

The sun is the ultimate source of energy in Earth’s climate system, so it’s a natural candidate for causing climate change. And solar activity has certainly changed over time. We know from satellite measurements and other astronomical observations that the sun’s output changes on 11-year cycles. Geologic records and sunspot numbers, which astronomers have tracked for centuries, also show long-term variations in the sun’s activity, including some exceptionally quiet periods in the late 1600s and early 1800s.

We know that, from 1900 until the 1950s, solar irradiance increased. And studies suggest that this had a modest effect on early 20th century climate, explaining up to 10 percent of the warming that’s occurred since the late 1800s. However, in the second half of the century, when the most warming occurred, solar activity actually declined . This disparity is one of the main reasons we know that the sun is not the driving force behind climate change.

Another reason we know that solar activity hasn’t caused recent warming is that, if it had, all the layers of the atmosphere should be heating up. Instead, data show that the upper atmosphere has actually cooled in recent decades — a hallmark of greenhouse warming .

So how about volcanoes? Eruptions cool the planet by injecting ash and aerosol particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight. We’ve observed this effect in the years following large eruptions. There are also some notable historical examples, like when Iceland’s Laki volcano erupted in 1783, causing widespread crop failures in Europe and beyond, and the “ year without a summer ,” which followed the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia.

Since volcanoes mainly act as climate coolers, they can’t really explain recent warming. However, scientists say that they may also have contributed slightly to rising temperatures in the early 20th century. That’s because there were several large eruptions in the late 1800s that cooled the planet, followed by a few decades with no major volcanic events when warming caught up. During the second half of the 20th century, though, several big eruptions occurred as the planet was heating up fast. If anything, they temporarily masked some amount of human-caused warming.

The second way volcanoes can impact climate is by emitting carbon dioxide. This is important on time scales of millions of years — it’s what keeps the planet habitable (see Question 5 for more on the greenhouse effect). But by comparison to modern anthropogenic emissions, even big eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount St. Helens are just a drop in the bucket. After all, they last only a few hours or days, while we burn fossil fuels 24-7. Studies suggest that, today, volcanoes account for 1 to 2 percent of total CO2 emissions.

When a big snowstorm hits the United States, climate denialists can try to cite it as proof that climate change isn’t happening. In 2015, Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, famously lobbed a snowball in the Senate as he denounced climate science. But these events don’t actually disprove climate change.

While there have been some memorable storms in recent years, winters are actually warming across the world. In the United States, average temperatures in December, January and February have increased by about 2.5 degrees this century.

On the flip side, record cold days are becoming less common than record warm days. In the United States, record highs now outnumber record lows two-to-one . And ever-smaller areas of the country experience extremely cold winter temperatures . (The same trends are happening globally.)

So what’s with the blizzards? Weather always varies, so it’s no surprise that we still have severe winter storms even as average temperatures rise. However, some studies suggest that climate change may be to blame. One possibility is that rapid Arctic warming has affected atmospheric circulation, including the fast-flowing, high-altitude air that usually swirls over the North Pole (a.k.a. the Polar Vortex ). Some studies suggest that these changes are bringing more frigid temperatures to lower latitudes and causing weather systems to stall , allowing storms to produce more snowfall. This may explain what we’ve experienced in the U.S. over the past few decades, as well as a wintertime cooling trend in Siberia , although exactly how the Arctic affects global weather remains a topic of ongoing scientific debate .

Climate change may also explain the apparent paradox behind some of the other places on Earth that haven’t warmed much. For instance, a splotch of water in the North Atlantic has cooled in recent years, and scientists say they suspect that may be because ocean circulation is slowing as a result of freshwater streaming off a melting Greenland . If this circulation grinds almost to a halt, as it’s done in the geologic past, it would alter weather patterns around the world.

Not all cold weather stems from some counterintuitive consequence of climate change. But it’s a good reminder that Earth’s climate system is complex and chaotic, so the effects of human-caused changes will play out differently in different places. That’s why “global warming” is a bit of an oversimplification. Instead, some scientists have suggested that the phenomenon of human-caused climate change would more aptly be called “ global weirding .”

Extreme weather and natural disasters are part of life on Earth — just ask the dinosaurs. But there is good evidence that climate change has increased the frequency and severity of certain phenomena like heat waves, droughts and floods. Recent research has also allowed scientists to identify the influence of climate change on specific events.

Let’s start with heat waves . Studies show that stretches of abnormally high temperatures now happen about five times more often than they would without climate change, and they last longer, too. Climate models project that, by the 2040s, heat waves will be about 12 times more frequent. And that’s concerning since extreme heat often causes increased hospitalizations and deaths, particularly among older people and those with underlying health conditions. In the summer of 2003, for example, a heat wave caused an estimated 70,000 excess deaths across Europe. (Human-caused warming amplified the death toll .)

Climate change has also exacerbated droughts , primarily by increasing evaporation. Droughts occur naturally because of random climate variability and factors like whether El Niño or La Niña conditions prevail in the tropical Pacific. But some researchers have found evidence that greenhouse warming has been affecting droughts since even before the Dust Bowl . And it continues to do so today. According to one analysis , the drought that afflicted the American Southwest from 2000 to 2018 was almost 50 percent more severe because of climate change. It was the worst drought the region had experienced in more than 1,000 years.

Rising temperatures have also increased the intensity of heavy precipitation events and the flooding that often follows. For example, studies have found that, because warmer air holds more moisture, Hurricane Harvey, which struck Houston in 2017, dropped between 15 and 40 percent more rainfall than it would have without climate change.

It’s still unclear whether climate change is changing the overall frequency of hurricanes, but it is making them stronger . And warming appears to favor certain kinds of weather patterns, like the “ Midwest Water Hose ” events that caused devastating flooding across the Midwest in 2019 .

It’s important to remember that in most natural disasters, there are multiple factors at play. For instance, the 2019 Midwest floods occurred after a recent cold snap had frozen the ground solid, preventing the soil from absorbing rainwater and increasing runoff into the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. These waterways have also been reshaped by levees and other forms of river engineering, some of which failed in the floods.

Wildfires are another phenomenon with multiple causes. In many places, fire risk has increased because humans have aggressively fought natural fires and prevented Indigenous peoples from carrying out traditional burning practices. This has allowed fuel to accumulate that makes current fires worse .

However, climate change still plays a major role by heating and drying forests, turning them into tinderboxes. Studies show that warming is the driving factor behind the recent increases in wildfires; one analysis found that climate change is responsible for doubling the area burned across the American West between 1984 and 2015. And researchers say that warming will only make fires bigger and more dangerous in the future.

It depends on how aggressively we act to address climate change. If we continue with business as usual, by the end of the century, it will be too hot to go outside during heat waves in the Middle East and South Asia . Droughts will grip Central America, the Mediterranean and southern Africa. And many island nations and low-lying areas, from Texas to Bangladesh, will be overtaken by rising seas. Conversely, climate change could bring welcome warming and extended growing seasons to the upper Midwest , Canada, the Nordic countries and Russia . Farther north, however, the loss of snow, ice and permafrost will upend the traditions of Indigenous peoples and threaten infrastructure.

It’s complicated, but the underlying message is simple: unchecked climate change will likely exacerbate existing inequalities . At a national level, poorer countries will be hit hardest, even though they have historically emitted only a fraction of the greenhouse gases that cause warming. That’s because many less developed countries tend to be in tropical regions where additional warming will make the climate increasingly intolerable for humans and crops. These nations also often have greater vulnerabilities, like large coastal populations and people living in improvised housing that is easily damaged in storms. And they have fewer resources to adapt, which will require expensive measures like redesigning cities, engineering coastlines and changing how people grow food.

Already, between 1961 and 2000, climate change appears to have harmed the economies of the poorest countries while boosting the fortunes of the wealthiest nations that have done the most to cause the problem, making the global wealth gap 25 percent bigger than it would otherwise have been. Similarly, the Global Climate Risk Index found that lower income countries — like Myanmar, Haiti and Nepal — rank high on the list of nations most affected by extreme weather between 1999 and 2018. Climate change has also contributed to increased human migration, which is expected to increase significantly .

Even within wealthy countries, the poor and marginalized will suffer the most. People with more resources have greater buffers, like air-conditioners to keep their houses cool during dangerous heat waves, and the means to pay the resulting energy bills. They also have an easier time evacuating their homes before disasters, and recovering afterward. Lower income people have fewer of these advantages, and they are also more likely to live in hotter neighborhoods and work outdoors, where they face the brunt of climate change.

These inequalities will play out on an individual, community, and regional level. A 2017 analysis of the U.S. found that, under business as usual, the poorest one-third of counties, which are concentrated in the South, will experience damages totaling as much as 20 percent of gross domestic product, while others, mostly in the northern part of the country, will see modest economic gains. Solomon Hsiang, an economist at University of California, Berkeley, and the lead author of the study, has said that climate change “may result in the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the country’s history.”

Even the climate “winners” will not be immune from all climate impacts, though. Desirable locations will face an influx of migrants. And as the coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated, disasters in one place quickly ripple across our globalized economy. For instance, scientists expect climate change to increase the odds of multiple crop failures occurring at the same time in different places, throwing the world into a food crisis .

On top of that, warmer weather is aiding the spread of infectious diseases and the vectors that transmit them, like ticks and mosquitoes . Research has also identified troubling correlations between rising temperatures and increased interpersonal violence , and climate change is widely recognized as a “threat multiplier” that increases the odds of larger conflicts within and between countries. In other words, climate change will bring many changes that no amount of money can stop. What could help is taking action to limit warming.

One of the most common arguments against taking aggressive action to combat climate change is that doing so will kill jobs and cripple the economy. But this implies that there’s an alternative in which we pay nothing for climate change. And unfortunately, there isn’t. In reality, not tackling climate change will cost a lot , and cause enormous human suffering and ecological damage, while transitioning to a greener economy would benefit many people and ecosystems around the world.

Let’s start with how much it will cost to address climate change. To keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement, society will have to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this century. That will require significant investments in things like renewable energy, electric cars and charging infrastructure, not to mention efforts to adapt to hotter temperatures, rising sea-levels and other unavoidable effects of current climate changes. And we’ll have to make changes fast.

Estimates of the cost vary widely. One recent study found that keeping warming to 2 degrees Celsius would require a total investment of between $4 trillion and $60 trillion, with a median estimate of $16 trillion, while keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius could cost between $10 trillion and $100 trillion, with a median estimate of $30 trillion. (For reference, the entire world economy was about $88 trillion in 2019.) Other studies have found that reaching net zero will require annual investments ranging from less than 1.5 percent of global gross domestic product to as much as 4 percent . That’s a lot, but within the range of historical energy investments in countries like the U.S.

Now, let’s consider the costs of unchecked climate change, which will fall hardest on the most vulnerable. These include damage to property and infrastructure from sea-level rise and extreme weather, death and sickness linked to natural disasters, pollution and infectious disease, reduced agricultural yields and lost labor productivity because of rising temperatures, decreased water availability and increased energy costs, and species extinction and habitat destruction. Dr. Hsiang, the U.C. Berkeley economist, describes it as “death by a thousand cuts.”

As a result, climate damages are hard to quantify. Moody’s Analytics estimates that even 2 degrees Celsius of warming will cost the world $69 trillion by 2100, and economists expect the toll to keep rising with the temperature. In a recent survey , economists estimated the cost would equal 5 percent of global G.D.P. at 3 degrees Celsius of warming (our trajectory under current policies) and 10 percent for 5 degrees Celsius. Other research indicates that, if current warming trends continue, global G.D.P. per capita will decrease between 7 percent and 23 percent by the end of the century — an economic blow equivalent to multiple coronavirus pandemics every year. And some fear these are vast underestimates .

Already, studies suggest that climate change has slashed incomes in the poorest countries by as much as 30 percent and reduced global agricultural productivity by 21 percent since 1961. Extreme weather events have also racked up a large bill. In 2020, in the United States alone, climate-related disasters like hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires caused nearly $100 billion in damages to businesses, property and infrastructure, compared to an average of $18 billion per year in the 1980s.

Given the steep price of inaction, many economists say that addressing climate change is a better deal . It’s like that old saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, limiting warming will greatly reduce future damage and inequality caused by climate change. It will also produce so-called co-benefits, like saving one million lives every year by reducing air pollution, and millions more from eating healthier, climate-friendly diets. Some studies even find that meeting the Paris Agreement goals could create jobs and increase global G.D.P . And, of course, reining in climate change will spare many species and ecosystems upon which humans depend — and which many people believe to have their own innate value.

The challenge is that we need to reduce emissions now to avoid damages later, which requires big investments over the next few decades. And the longer we delay, the more we will pay to meet the Paris goals. One recent analysis found that reaching net-zero by 2050 would cost the U.S. almost twice as much if we waited until 2030 instead of acting now. But even if we miss the Paris target, the economics still make a strong case for climate action, because every additional degree of warming will cost us more — in dollars, and in lives.

Veronica Penney contributed reporting.

Illustration photographs by Esther Horvath, Max Whittaker, David Maurice Smith and Talia Herman for The New York Times; Esther Horvath/Alfred-Wegener-Institut

An earlier version of this article misidentified the authors of The Debunking Handbook. It was written by social scientists who study climate communication, not a team of climate scientists.

How we handle corrections

What’s Up in Space and Astronomy

Keep track of things going on in our solar system and all around the universe..

Never miss an eclipse, a meteor shower, a rocket launch or any other 2024 event that’s out of this world with our space and astronomy calendar .

Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of dark energy, a mysterious cosmic force . That could be good news for the fate of the universe.

A new set of computer simulations, which take into account the effects of stars moving past our solar system, has effectively made it harder to predict Earth’s future and reconstruct its past.

Dante Lauretta, the planetary scientist who led the OSIRIS-REx mission to retrieve a handful of space dust , discusses his next final frontier.

A nova named T Coronae Borealis lit up the night about 80 years ago. Astronomers say it’s expected to put on another show in the coming months.

Is Pluto a planet? And what is a planet, anyway? Test your knowledge here .

Climate modelling
Extreme weather
Health and Security
Temperature
China energy
Oil and gas
Other technologies
China Policy
International policy
Other national policy
Rest of world policy
UN climate talks
Country profiles
Guest posts
Infographics
Media analysis
State of the climate
Translations
Daily Brief
China Briefing
Comments Policy
Cookies Policy
Global emissions
Rest of world emissions
UK emissions
EU emissions
Global South Climate Database
Newsletters
COP21 Paris
COP22 Marrakech
COP24 Katowice
COP25 Madrid
COP26 Glasgow
COP27 Sharm el-Sheikh
COP28 Dubai
Privacy Policy
Attribution
Geoengineering
Food and farming
Plants and forests
Marine life
Ocean acidification
Ocean warming
Sea level rise
Human security
Public health
Public opinion
Risk and adaptation
Science communication
Carbon budgets
Climate sensitivity
GHGs and aerosols
Global temperature
Negative emissions
Rest of world temperature
Tipping points
UK temperature
Thank you for subscribing

Social Channels

Search archive.

Receive a Daily or Weekly summary of the most important articles direct to your inbox, just enter your email below. By entering your email address you agree for your data to be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy .

Roz Pidcock

Which of the many thousands of papers on climate change published each year in scientific journals are the most successful? Which ones have done the most to advance scientists’ understanding, alter the course of climate change research, or inspire future generations?

On Wednesday, Carbon Brief will reveal the results of our analysis into which scientific papers on the topic of climate change are the most “cited”. That means, how many times other scientists have mentioned them in their own published research. It’s a pretty good measure of how much impact a paper has had in the science world.

But there are other ways to measure influence. Before we reveal the figures on the most-cited research, Carbon Brief has asked climate experts what they think are the most influential papers.

We asked all the coordinating lead authors, lead authors and review editors on the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to nominate three papers from any time in history. This is the exact question we posed:

What do you consider to be the three most influential papers in the field of climate change?

As you might expect from a broad mix of physical scientists, economists, social scientists and policy experts, the nominations spanned a range of topics and historical periods, capturing some of the great climate pioneers and the very latest climate economics research.

Here’s a link to our summary of who said what . But one paper clearly takes the top spot.

Winner: Manabe & Wetherald ( 1967 )

With eight nominations, a seminal paper by Syukuro Manabe and Richard. T. Wetherald published in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences in 1967 tops the Carbon Brief poll as the IPCC scientists’ top choice for the most influential climate change paper of all time.

Entitled, “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity”, the work was the first to represent the fundamental elements of the Earth’s climate in a computer model, and to explore what doubling carbon dioxide (CO2) would do to global temperature.

Manabe & Wetherald (1967), Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

The Manabe & Wetherald paper is considered by many as a pioneering effort in the field of climate modelling, one that effectively opened the door to projecting future climate change. And the value of climate sensitivity is something climate scientists are still grappling with today .

Prof Piers Forster , a physical climate scientist at Leeds University and lead author of the chapter on clouds and aerosols in working group one of the last IPCC report, tells Carbon Brief:

This was really the first physically sound climate model allowing accurate predictions of climate change.

The paper’s findings have stood the test of time amazingly well, Forster says.

Its results are still valid today. Often when I’ve think I’ve done a new bit of work, I found that it had already been included in this paper.

Prof Steve Sherwood , expert in atmospheric climate dynamics at the University of New South Wales and another lead author on the clouds and aerosols chapter, says it’s a tough choice, but Manabe & Wetherald (1967) gets his vote, too. Sherwood tells Carbon Brief:

[The paper was] the first proper computation of global warming and stratospheric cooling from enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, including atmospheric emission and water-vapour feedback.

Prof Danny Harvey , professor of climate modelling at the University of Toronto and lead author on the buildings chapter in the IPCC’s working group three report on mitigation, emphasises the Manabe & Wetherald paper’s impact on future generations of scientists. He says:

[The paper was] the first to assess the magnitude of the water vapour feedback, and was frequently cited for a good 20 years after it was published.

Tomorrow, Carbon Brief will be publishing an interview with Syukuro Manabe, alongside a special summary by Prof John Mitchell , the Met Office Hadley Centre’s chief scientist from 2002 to 2008 and director of climate science from 2008 to 2010, on why the paper still holds such significance today.

Joint second: Keeling, C.D et al. ( 1976 )

Jumping forward a decade, a classic paper by Charles Keeling and colleagues in 1976 came in joint second place in the Carbon Brief survey.

Published in the journal Tellus under the title, “Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa observatory,” the paper documented for the first time the stark rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.

A photocopy of Keeling et al., (1976) Source: University of California, Santa Cruz

Dr Jorge Carrasco , Antarctic climate change researcher at the University of Magallanes in Chile and lead author on the cryosphere chapter in the last IPCC report, tells Carbon Brief why the research underpinning the “Keeling Curve’ was so important.

This paper revealed for the first time the observing increased of the atmospheric CO2 as the result of the combustion of carbon, petroleum and natural gas.

Prof David Stern , energy and environmental economist at the Australian National University and lead author on the Drivers, Trends and Mitigation chapter of the IPCC’s working group three report, also chooses the 1976 Keeling paper, though he notes:

This is a really tough question as there are so many dimensions to the climate problem – natural science, social science, policy etc.

With the Mauna Loa measurements continuing today , the so-called “Keeling curve” is the longest continuous record of carbon dioxide concentration in the world. Its historical significance and striking simplicity has made it one of the most iconic visualisations of climate change.

Source: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Also in joint second place: Held, I.M. & Soden, B.J. ( 2006 )

Fast forwarding a few decades, in joint second place comes a paper by Isaac Held and Brian Soden published in the journal Science in 2006.

The paper, “Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming”, identified how rainfall from one place to another would be affected by climate change. Prof Sherwood, who nominated this paper as well as the winning one from Manabe and Wetherald, tells Carbon Brief why it represented an important step forward. He says:

[This paper] advanced what is known as the “wet-get-wetter, dry-get-drier” paradigm for precipitation in global warming. This mantra has been widely misunderstood and misapplied, but was the first and perhaps still the only systematic conclusion about regional precipitation and global warming based on robust physical understanding of the atmosphere.

Held & Soden (2006), Journal of Climate

Honourable mentions

Rather than choosing a single paper, quite a few academics in our survey nominated one or more of the Working Group contributions to the last IPCC report. A couple even suggested the Fifth Assessment Report in its entirety, running to several thousands of pages. The original IPCC report , published in 1990, also got mentioned.

It was clear from the results that scientists tended to pick papers related to their own field. For example, Prof Ottmar Edenhofer , chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group Three report on mitigation, selected four papers from the last 20 years on the economics of climate change costs versus risks, recent emissions trends, the technological feasibility of strong emissions reductions and the nature of international climate cooperation.

Taking a historical perspective, a few more of the early pioneers of climate science featured in our results, too. For example, Svante Arrhenius’ famous 1896 paper on the Greenhouse Effect, entitled “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground”, received a couple of votes.

Prof Jonathan Wiener , environmental policy expert at Duke University in the US and lead author on the International Cooperation chapter in the IPCC’s working group three report, explains why this paper should be remembered as one of the most influential in climate policy. He says:

[This is the] classic paper showing that rising greenhouse gas concentrations lead to increasing global average surface temperature.

Svante Arrhenius (1896), Philosophical Magazine

A few decades later, a paper by Guy Callendar in 1938 linked the increase in carbon dioxide concentration over the previous 50 years to rising temperatures. Entitled, “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature,” the paper marked an important step forward in climate change research, says Andrew Solow , director of the Woods Hole Marine Policy centre and lead author on the detection and attribution of climate impacts chapter in the IPCC’s working group two report. He says:

There is earlier work on the greenhouse effect, but not (to my knowledge) on the connection between increasing levels of CO2 and temperature.

Though it may feature in the climate change literature hall of fame, this paper raises a question about how to define a paper’s influence, says Forster. Rather than being celebrated among his contemporaries, Callendar’s work achieved recognition a long time after it was published. Forster says:

I would loved to have chosen Callendar (1938) as the first attribution paper that changed the world. Unfortunately, the 1938 effort of Callendar was only really recognised afterwards as being a founding publication of the field … The same comment applies to earlier Arrhenius and Tyndall efforts. They were only influential in hindsight.

Guy Callendar and his 1938 paper in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

Other honourable mentions in the Carbon Brief survey of most influential climate papers go to Norman Phillips, whose 1956 paper described the first general circulation model, William Nordhaus’s 1991 paper on the economics of the greenhouse effect, and a paper by Camile Parmesan and Gary Yohe in 2003 , considered by many to provide the first formal attribution of climate change impacts on animal and plant species.

Finally, James Hansen’s 2012 paper , “Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice”, was important in highlighting the real-world impacts of climate change, says Prof Andy Challinor , expert in climate change impacts at the University of Leeds and lead author on the food security chapter in the working group two report. He says:

[It] helped with demonstrating the strong links between extreme events this century and climate change. Result: more clarity and less hedging.

Marc Levi , a political scientist at Columbia University and lead author on the IPCC’s human security chapter, makes a wider point, telling Carbon Brief:

The importance is in showing that climate change is observable in the present.

Indeed, attribution of extreme weather continues to be at the forefront of climate science, pushing scientists’ understanding of the climate system and modern technology to their limits.

Look out for more on the latest in attribution research as Carbon Brief reports on the Our Common Futures Under Climate Change conference taking place in Paris this week.

Pinning down which climate science papers most changed the world is difficult, and we suspect climate scientists could argue about this all day. But while the question elicits a range of very personal preferences, stories and characters, one paper has clearly stood the test of time and emerged as the popular choice among today’s climate experts – Manabe and Wetherald, 1967.

Main image: Satellite image of Hurricane Katrina.

What are the most influential climate change papers of all time?

Expert analysis direct to your inbox.

Get a round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email. Find out more about our newsletters here .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
v.11(6); 2021

Original research

Health effects of climate change: an overview of systematic reviews, rhea j rocque.

1 Prairie Climate Centre, The University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Caroline Beaudoin

2 Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

Ruth Ndjaboue

3 VITAM Research Centre for Sustainable Health, Quebec, QC, Canada

Laura Cameron

Louann poirier-bergeron, rose-alice poulin-rheault, catherine fallon.

4 CHUQ Research Centre, Quebec, QC, Canada

Andrea C Tricco

5 Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

6 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Holly O Witteman

Associated data.

bmjopen-2020-046333supp001.pdf

bmjopen-2020-046333supp002.pdf

bmjopen-2020-046333supp003.pdf

bmjopen-2020-046333supp004.pdf

bmjopen-2020-046333supp005.pdf

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Additional data are not available.

We aimed to develop a systematic synthesis of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change, by synthesising studies’ characteristics, climate impacts, health outcomes and key findings.

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change. We registered our review in PROSPERO (CRD42019145972). No ethical approval was required since we used secondary data. Additional data are not available.

Data sources

On 22 June 2019, we searched Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science.

Eligibility criteria

We included systematic reviews that explored at least one health impact of climate change.

Data extraction and synthesis

We organised systematic reviews according to their key characteristics, including geographical regions, year of publication and authors’ affiliations. We mapped the climate effects and health outcomes being studied and synthesised major findings. We used a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to assess the quality of studies.

We included 94 systematic reviews. Most were published after 2015 and approximately one-fifth contained meta-analyses. Reviews synthesised evidence about five categories of climate impacts; the two most common were meteorological and extreme weather events. Reviews covered 10 health outcome categories; the 3 most common were (1) infectious diseases, (2) mortality and (3) respiratory, cardiovascular or neurological outcomes. Most reviews suggested a deleterious impact of climate change on multiple adverse health outcomes, although the majority also called for more research.

Conclusions

Most systematic reviews suggest that climate change is associated with worse human health. This study provides a comprehensive higher order summary of research on health impacts of climate change. Study limitations include possible missed relevant reviews, no meta-meta-analyses, and no assessment of overlap. Future research could explore the potential explanations between these associations to propose adaptation and mitigation strategies and could include broader sociopsychological health impacts of climate change.

Strengths and limitations of this study

A strength of this study is that it provides the first broad overview of previous systematic reviews exploring the health impacts of climate change. By targeting systematic reviews, we achieve a higher order summary of findings than what would have been possible by consulting individual original studies.
By synthesising findings across all included studies and according to the combination of climate impact and health outcome, we offer a clear, detailed and unique summary of the current state of evidence and knowledge gaps about how climate change may influence human health.
A limitation of this study is that we were unable to access some full texts and therefore some studies were excluded, even though we deemed them potentially relevant after title and abstract inspection.
Another limitation is that we could not conduct meta-meta-analyses of findings across reviews, due to the heterogeneity of the included systematic reviews and the relatively small proportion of studies reporting meta-analytic findings.
Finally, the date of the systematic search is a limitation, as we conducted the search in June 2019.

Introduction

The environmental consequences of climate change such as sea-level rise, increasing temperatures, more extreme weather events, increased droughts, flooding and wildfires are impacting human health and lives. 1 2 Previous studies and reviews have documented the multiple health impacts of climate change, including an increase in infectious diseases, respiratory disorders, heat-related morbidity and mortality, undernutrition due to food insecurity, and adverse health outcomes ensuing from increased sociopolitical tension and conflicts. 2–5 Indeed, the most recent Lancet Countdown report, 2 which investigates 43 indicators of the relationship between climate change and human health, arrived at their most worrisome findings since the beginning of their on-going annual work. This report underlines that the health impacts of climate change continue to worsen and are being felt on every continent, although they are having a disproportionate and unequal impact on populations. 2 Authors caution that these health impacts will continue to worsen unless we see an immediate international response to limiting climate change.

To guide future research and action to mitigate and adapt to the health impacts of climate change and its environmental consequences, we need a complete and thorough overview of the research already conducted regarding the health impacts of climate change. Although the number of original studies researching the health impacts of climate change has greatly increased in the recent decade, 2 these do not allow for an in-depth overview of the current literature on the topic. Systematic reviews, on the other hand, allow a higher order overview of the literature. Although previous systematic reviews have been conducted on the health impacts of climate change, these tend to focus on specific climate effects (eg, impact of wildfires on health), 6 7 health impacts (eg, occupational health outcomes), 8 9 countries, 10–12 or are no longer up to date, 13 14 thus limiting our global understanding of what is currently known about the multiple health impacts of climate change across the world.

In this study, we aimed to develop such a complete overview by synthesising systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change. This higher order overview of the literature will allow us to better prepare for the worsening health impacts of climate change, by identifying and describing the diversity and range of health impacts studied, as well as by identifying gaps in previous research. Our research objectives were to synthesise studies’ characteristics such as geographical regions, years of publication, and authors’ affiliations, to map the climate impacts, health outcomes, and combinations of these that have been studied, and to synthesise key findings.

We applied the Cochrane method for overviews of reviews. 15 This method is designed to systematically map the themes of studies on a topic and synthesise findings to achieve a broader overview of the available literature on the topic.

Research questions

Our research questions were the following: (1) What is known about the relationship between climate change and health, as shown in previous systematic reviews? (2) What are the characteristics of these studies? We registered our plan (CRD42019145972 16 ) in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 17 to report our findings, as a reporting guideline for overviews is still in development. 18

Search strategy and selection criteria

To identify relevant studies, we used a systematic search strategy. There were two inclusion criteria. We included studies in this review if they (1) were systematic reviews of original research and (2) reported at least one health impact as it related (directly or indirectly) to climate change.

We defined a systematic review, based on Cochrane’s definition, as a review of the literature in which one ‘attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question [by] us[ing] explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making’. 19 We included systematic reviews of original research, with or without meta-analyses. We excluded narrative reviews, non-systematic literature reviews and systematic reviews of materials that were not original research (eg, systematic reviews of guidelines.)

We based our definition of health impacts on the WHO’s definition of health as, ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’. 20 Therefore, health impacts included, among others, morbidity, mortality, new conditions, worsening/improving conditions, injuries and psychological well-being. Included studies could refer to climate change or global warming directly or indirectly, for instance, by synthesising the direct or indirect health effects of temperature rises or of natural conditions/disasters made more likely by climate change (eg, floods, wildfires, temperature variability, droughts.) Although climate change and global warming are not equivalent terms, in an effort to avoid missing relevant literature, we included studies using either term. We included systematic reviews whose main focus was not the health impacts of climate change, providing they reported at least one result regarding health effects related to climate change (or consequences of climate change.) We excluded studies if they did not report at least one health effect of climate change. For instance, we excluded studies which reported on existing measures of health impacts of climate change (and not the health impact itself) and studies which reported on certain health impacts without a mention of climate change, global warming or environmental consequences made more likely by climate change.

On 22 June 2019, we retrieved systematic reviews regarding the health effects of climate change by searching from inception the electronic databases Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science using a structured search (see online supplemental appendix 1 for final search strategy developed by a librarian.) We did not apply language restrictions. After removing duplicates, we imported references into Covidence. 21

Supplementary data

Screening process and data extraction.

To select studies, two trained analysts first screened independently titles and abstracts to eliminate articles that did not meet our inclusion criteria. Next, the two analysts independently screened the full text of each article. A senior analyst resolved any conflict or disagreement.

Next, we decided on key information that needed to be extracted from studies. We extracted the first author’s name, year of publication, number of studies included, time frame (in years) of the studies included in the article, first author’s institution’s country affiliation, whether the systematic review included a meta-analysis, geographical focus, population focus, the climate impact(s) and the health outcome(s) as well as the main findings and limitations of each systematic review.

Two or more trained analysts (RR, CB, RN, LC, LPB, RAPR) independently extracted data, using Covidence and spreadsheet software (Google Sheets). An additional trained analyst from the group or senior research team member resolved disagreements between individual judgments.

Coding and data mapping

To summarise findings from previous reviews, we first mapped articles according to climate impacts and health outcomes. To develop the categories of climate impacts and health outcomes, two researchers (RR and LC) consulted the titles and abstracts of each article. We started by identifying categories directly based on our data and finalised our categories by consulting previous conceptual frameworks of climate impacts and health outcomes. 1 22 23 The same two researchers independently coded each article according to their climate impact and health outcome. We then compared coding and resolved disagreements through discussion.

Next, using spreadsheet software, we created a matrix to map articles according to their combination of climate impacts and health outcomes. Each health outcome occupied one row, whereas climate impacts each occupied one column. We placed each article in the matrix according to the combination(s) of their climate impact(s) and health outcome(s). For instance, if we coded an article as ‘extreme weather’ for climate and ‘mental health’ for health impact, we noted the reference of this article in the cell at the intersection of these two codes. We calculated frequencies for each cell to identify frequent combinations and gaps in literature. Because one study could investigate more than one climate impact and health outcome, the frequency counts for each category could exceed the number of studies included in this review.

Finally, we re-read the Results and Discussion sections of each article to summarise findings of the studies. We first wrote an individual summary for each study, then we collated the summaries of all studies exploring the same combination of categories to develop an overall summary of findings for each combination of categories.

Quality assessment

We used a modified version of AMSTAR-2 to assess the quality of the included systematic reviews ( online supplemental appendix 2 ). The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the quality of the included studies as a whole to get a sense of the overall quality of evidence in this field. Therefore, individual quality scores were not compiled for each article, but scores were aggregated according to items. Since AMSTAR-2 was developed for syntheses of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, working with a team member with expertise in knowledge synthesis (AT), we adapted it to suit a research context that is not amenable to randomised controlled trials. For instance, we changed assessing and accounting for risk of bias in studies’ included randomised controlled trials to assessing and accounting for limitations in studies’ included articles. Complete modifications are presented in online supplemental appendix 2 .

Patient and public involvement

Patients and members of the public were not involved in this study.

Articles identified

As shown in the PRISMA diagram in figure 1 , from an initial set of 2619 references, we retained 94 for inclusion. More precisely, following screening of titles and abstracts, 146 studies remained for full-text inspection. During full-text inspection, we excluded 52 studies, as they did not report a direct health effect of climate change (n=17), did not relate to climate change (n=15), were not systematic reviews (n=10), or we could not retrieve the full text (n=10).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is bmjopen-2020-046333f01.jpg

The flow chart for included articles in this review.

Study descriptions

A detailed table of all articles and their characteristics can be found in online supplemental appendix 3 . Publication years ranged from 2007 to 2019 (year of data extraction), with the great majority of included articles (n=69; 73%) published since 2015 ( figure 2 ). A median of 30 studies had been included in the systematic reviews (mean=60; SD=49; range 7–722). Approximately one-fifth of the systematic reviews included meta-analyses of their included studies (n=18; 19%). The majority of included systematic reviews’ first authors had affiliations in high-income countries, with the largest representations by continent in Europe (n=30) and Australia (n=24) ( figure 3 ). Countries of origin by continents include (from highest to lowest frequency, then by alphabetical order): Europe (30); UK (9), Germany (6), Italy (4), Sweden (4), Denmark (2), France (2), Georgia (1), Greece (1) and Finland (1); Australia (24); Asia (21); China (11), Iran (4), India (1), Jordan (1), Korea (1), Nepal (1), Philippines (1), Taiwan (1); North America (16); USA (15), Canada (1); Africa (2); Ethiopia (1), Ghana (1), and South America (1); Brazil (1).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is bmjopen-2020-046333f02.jpg

Number of included systematic reviews by year of publication.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is bmjopen-2020-046333f03.jpg

Number of publications according to geographical affiliation of the first author.

Regarding the geographical focus of systematic reviews, most of the included studies (n=68; 72%) had a global focus or no specified geographical limitations and therefore included studies published anywhere in the world. The remaining systematic reviews either targeted certain countries (n=12) (1 for each Australia, Germany, Iran, India, Ethiopia, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand and 2 reviews focused on China and the USA), continents (n=5) (3 focused on Europe and 2 on Asia), or regions according to geographical location (n=6) (1 focused on Sub-Saharan Africa, 1 on Eastern Mediterranean countries, 1 on Tropical countries, and 3 focused on the Arctic), or according to the country’s level of income (n=3) (2 on low to middle income countries, 1 on high income countries).

Regarding specific populations of interest, most of the systematic reviews did not define a specific population of interest (n=69; 73%). For the studies that specified a population of interest (n=25; 26.6%), the most frequent populations were children (n=7) and workers (n=6), followed by vulnerable or susceptible populations more generally (n=4), the elderly (n=3), pregnant people (n=2), people with disabilities or chronic illnesses (n=2) and rural populations (n=1).

We assessed studies for quality according to our revised AMSTAR-2. Complete scores for each article and each item are available in online supplemental appendix 4 . Out of 94 systematic reviews, the most commonly fully satisfied criterion was #1 (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) components) with 81/94 (86%) of included systematic reviews fully satisfying this criterion. The next most commonly satisfied criteria were #16 (potential sources of conflict of interest reported) (78/94=83% fully), #13 (account for limitations in individual studies) (70/94=75% fully and 2/94=2% partially), #7 (explain both inclusion and exclusion criteria) (64/94=68% fully and 19/94=20% partially), #8 (description of included studies in adequate detail) (36/94=38% fully and 41/94=44% partially), and #4 (use of a comprehensive literature search strategy) (0/94=0% fully and 80/94=85% partially). For criteria #11, #12, and #15, which only applied to reviews including meta-analyses, 17/18 (94%) fully satisfied criterion #11 (use of an appropriate methods for statistical combination of results), 12/18 (67%) fully satisfied criterion #12 (assessment of the potential impact of Risk of Bias (RoB) in individual studies) (1/18=6% partially), and 11/18 (61%) fully satisfied criterion #15 (an adequate investigation of publication bias, small study bias).

Climate impacts and health outcomes

Regarding climate impacts, we identified 5 mutually exclusive categories, with 13 publications targeting more than one category of climate impacts: (1) meteorological (n=71 papers) (eg, temperature, heat waves, humidity, precipitation, sunlight, wind, air pressure), (2) extreme weather (n=24) (eg, water-related, floods, cyclones, hurricanes, drought), (3) air quality (n=7) (eg, air pollution and wildfire smoke exposure), (4) general (n=5), and (5) other (n=3). Although heat waves could be considered an extreme weather event, papers investigating heat waves’ impact on health were classified in the meteorological impact category, since some of these studies treated them with high temperature. ‘General’ climate impacts included articles that did not specify climate change impacts but stated general climate change as their focus. ‘Other’ climate impacts included studies investigating other effects indirectly related to climate change (eg, impact of environmental contaminants) or general environmental risk factors (eg, environmental hazards, sanitation and access to clean water.)

We identified 10 categories to describe the health outcomes studied by the systematic reviews, and 29 publications targeted more than one category of health outcomes: (1) infectious diseases (n=41 papers) (vector borne, food borne and water borne), (2) mortality (n=32), (3) respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological (n=23), (4) healthcare systems (n=16), 5) mental health (n=13), (6) pregnancy and birth (n=11), 7) nutritional (n=9), (8) skin diseases and allergies (n=8), (9) occupational health and injuries (n=6) and (10) other health outcomes (n=17) (eg, sleep, arthritis, disability-adjusted life years, non-occupational injuries, etc)

Figure 4 depicts the combinations of climate impact and health outcome for each study, with online supplemental appendix 5 offering further details. The five most common combinations are studies investigating the (1) meteorological impacts on infectious diseases (n=35), (2) mortality (n=24) and (3) respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological outcomes (n=17), (4) extreme weather events’ impacts on infectious diseases (n=14), and (5) meteorological impacts on health systems (n=11).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is bmjopen-2020-046333f04.jpg

Summary of the combination of climate impact and health outcome (frequencies). The total frequency for one category of health outcome could exceed the number of publications included in this health outcome, since one publication could explore the health impact according to more than one climate factor (eg, one publication could explore both the impact of extreme weather events and temperature on mental health).

For studies investigating meteorological impacts on health, the three most common health outcomes studied were impacts on (1) infectious diseases (n=35), (2) mortality (n=24) and (3) respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological outcomes (n=17). Extreme weather event studies most commonly reported health outcomes related to (1) infectious diseases (n=14), (2) mental health outcomes (n=9) and (3) nutritional outcomes (n=6) and other health outcomes (eg, injuries, sleep) (n=6). Studies focused on the impact of air quality were less frequent and explored mostly health outcomes linked to (1) respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological outcomes (n=6), (2) mortality (n=5) and (3) pregnancy and birth outcomes (n=3).

Summary of findings

Most reviews suggest a deleterious impact of climate change on multiple adverse health outcomes, with some associations being explored and/or supported with consistent findings more often than others. Some reviews also report conflicting findings or an absence of association between the climate impact and health outcome studied (see table 1 for a detailed summary of findings according to health outcomes).

Summary of findings from systematic reviews according to health outcome and climate impact

Reviews that covered multiple climate impacts are listed in each relevant category.

Notable findings of health outcomes according to climate impact include the following. For meteorological factors (n=71), temperature and humidity are the variables most often studied and report the most consistent associations with infectious diseases and respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological outcomes. Temperature is also consistently associated with mortality and healthcare service use. Some associations are less frequently studied, but remain consistent, including the association between some meteorological factors (eg, temperature and heat) and some adverse mental health outcomes (eg, hospital admissions for mental health reasons, suicide, exacerbation of previous mental health conditions), and the association between heat and adverse occupational outcomes and some adverse birth outcomes. Temperature is also associated with adverse nutritional outcomes (likely via crop production and food insecurity) and temperature and humidity are associated with some skin diseases and allergies. Some health outcomes are less frequently studied, but studies suggest an association between temperature and diabetes, impaired sleep, cataracts, heat stress, heat exhaustion and renal diseases.

Extreme weather events (n=24) are consistently associated with mortality, some mental health outcomes (eg, distress, anxiety, depression) and adverse nutritional outcomes (likely via crop production and food insecurity). Some associations are explored less frequently, but these studies suggest an association between drought and respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes (likely via air quality), between extreme weather events and an increased use of healthcare services and some adverse birth outcomes (likely due to indirect causes, such as experiencing stress). Some health outcomes are less frequently studied, but studies suggest an association between extreme weather events and injuries, impaired sleep, oesophageal cancer and exacerbation of chronic illnesses. There are limited and conflicting findings for the association between extreme weather events and infectious diseases, as well as for certain mental health outcomes (eg, suicide and substance abuse). At times, different types of extreme weather events (eg, drought vs flood) led to conflicting findings for some health outcomes (eg, mental health outcomes, infectious diseases), but for other health outcomes, the association was consistent independently of the extreme weather event studied (eg, mortality, healthcare service use and nutritional outcomes).

The impact of air quality on health (n=7) was less frequently studied, but the few studies exploring this association report consistent findings regarding an association with respiratory-specific mortality, adverse respiratory outcomes and an increase in healthcare service use. There is limited evidence regarding the association between air quality and cardiovascular outcomes, limited and inconsistent evidence between wildfire smoke exposure and adverse birth outcomes, and no association is found between exposure to wildfire smoke and increase in use of health services for mental health reasons. Only one review explored the impact of wildfire smoke exposure on ophthalmic outcomes, and it suggests that it may be associated with eye irritation and cataracts.

Reviews which stated climate change as their general focus and did not specify the climate impact(s) under study were less frequent (n=5), but they suggest an association between climate change and pollen allergies in Europe, increased use of healthcare services, obesity, skin diseases and allergies and an association with disability-adjusted life years. Reviews investigating the impact of other climate-related factors (n=3) show inconsistent findings concerning the association between environmental pollutant and adverse birth outcomes, and two reviews suggest an association between environmental risk factors and pollutants and childhood stunting and occupational diseases.

Most reviews concluded by calling for more research, noting the limitations observed among the studies included in their reviews, as well as limitations in their reviews themselves. These limitations included, among others, some systematic reviews having a small number of publications, 24 25 language restrictions such as including only papers in English, 26 27 arriving at conflicting evidence, 28 difficulty concluding a strong association due to the heterogeneity in methods and measurements or the limited equipment and access to quality data in certain contexts, 24 29–31 and most studies included were conducted in high-income countries. 32 33

Previous authors also discussed the important challenge related to exploring the relationship between climate change and health. Not only is it difficult to explore the potential causal relationship between climate change and health, mostly due to methodological challenges, but there are also a wide variety of complex causal factors that may interact to determine health outcomes. Therefore, the possible causal mechanisms underlying these associations were at times still unknown or uncertain and the impacts of some climate factors were different according to geographical location and specificities of the context. Nonetheless, some reviews offered potential explanations for the climate-health association, with the climate factor at times, having a direct impact on health (eg, flooding causing injuries, heat causing dehydration) and in other cases, having an indirect impact (eg, flooding causing stress which in turn may cause adverse birth outcomes, heat causing difficulty concentrating leading to occupational injuries.)

Principal results

In this overview of systematic reviews, we aimed to develop a synthesis of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change by mapping the characteristics and findings of studies exploring the relationship between climate change and health. We identified four key findings.

First, meteorological impacts, mostly related to temperature and humidity, were the most common impacts studied by included publications, which aligns with findings from a previous scoping review on the health impacts of climate change in the Philippines. 10 Indeed, meteorological factors’ impact on all health outcomes identified in this review are explored, although some health outcomes are more rarely explored (eg, mental health and nutritional outcomes). Although this may not be surprising given that a key implication of climate change is the long-term meteorological impact of temperature rise, this finding suggests we also need to undertake research focused on other climate impacts on health, including potential direct and indirect effects of temperature rise, such as the impact of droughts and wildfire smoke. This will allow us to better prepare for the health crises that arise from these ever-increasing climate-related impacts. For instance, the impacts of extreme weather events and air quality on certain health outcomes are not explored (eg, skin diseases and allergies, occupational health) or only rarely explored (eg, pregnancy outcomes).

Second, systematic reviews primarily focus on physical health outcomes, such as infectious diseases, mortality, and respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological outcomes, which also aligns with the country-specific previous scoping review. 10 Regarding mortality, we support Campbell and colleagues’ 34 suggestion that we should expand our focus to include other types of health outcomes. This will provide better support for mitigation policies and allow us to adapt to the full range of threats of climate change.

Moreover, it is unclear whether the distribution of frequencies of health outcomes reflects the actual burden of health impacts of climate change. The most commonly studied health outcomes do not necessarily reflect the definition of health presented by the WHO as, ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’. 20 This suggests that future studies should investigate in greater depth the impacts of climate change on mental and broader social well-being. Indeed, some reviews suggested that climate change impacts psychological and social well-being, via broader consequences, such as political instability, health system capacity, migration, and crime, 3 4 35 36 thus illustrating how our personal health is determined not only by biological and environmental factors but also by social and health systems. The importance of expanding our scope of health in this field is also recognised in the most recent Lancet report, which states that future reports will include a new mental health indicator. 2

Interestingly, the reviews that explored the mental health impacts of climate change were focused mostly on the direct and immediate impacts of experiencing extreme weather events. However, psychologists are also warning about the long-term indirect mental health impacts of climate change, which are becoming more prevalent for children and adults alike (eg, eco-anxiety, climate depression). 37 38 Even people who do not experience direct climate impacts, such as extreme weather events, report experiencing distressing emotions when thinking of the destruction of our environment or when worrying about one’s uncertain future and the lack of actions being taken. To foster emotional resilience in the face of climate change, these mental health impacts of climate change need to be further explored. Humanity’s ability to adapt to and mitigate climate change ultimately depends on our emotional capacity to face this threat.

Third, there is a notable geographical difference in the country affiliations of first authors, with three quarters of systematic reviews having been led by first authors affiliated to institutions in Europe, Australia, or North America, which aligns with the findings of the most recent Lancet report. 2 While perhaps unsurprising given the inequalities in research funding and institutions concentrated in Western countries, this is of critical importance given the significant health impacts that are currently faced (and will remain) in other parts of the world. Research funding organisations should seek to provide more resources to authors in low-income to middle-income countries to ensure their expertise and perspectives are better represented in the literature.

Fourth, overall, most reviews suggest an association between climate change and the deterioration of health in various ways, illustrating the interdependence of our health and well-being with the well-being of our environment. This interdependence may be direct (eg, heat’s impact on dehydration and exhaustion) or indirect (eg, via behaviour change due to heat.) The most frequently explored and consistently supported associations include an association between temperature and humidity with infectious diseases, mortality and adverse respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological outcomes. Other less frequently studied but consistent associations include associations between climate impacts and increased use of healthcare services, some adverse mental health outcomes, adverse nutritional outcomes and adverse occupational health outcomes. These associations support key findings of the most recent Lancet report, in which authors report, among others, increasing heat exposure being associated with increasing morbidities and mortality, climate change leading to food insecurity and undernutrition, and to an increase in infectious disease transmission. 2

That said, a number of reviews included in this study reported limited, conflicting and/or an absence of evidence regarding the association between the climate impact and health outcome. For instance, there was conflicting or limited evidence concerning the association between extreme weather events and infectious diseases, cardiorespiratory outcomes and some mental health outcomes and the association between air quality and cardiovascular-specific mortality and adverse birth outcomes. These conflicting and limited findings highlight the need for further research. These associations are complex and there exist important methodological challenges inherent to exploring the causal relationship between climate change and health outcomes. This relationship may at times be indirect and likely determined by multiple interacting factors.

The climate-health link has been the target of more research in recent years and it is also receiving increasing attention from the public and in both public health and climate communication literature. 2 39–41 However, the health framing of climate change information is still underused in climate communications, and researchers suggest we should be doing more to make the link between human health and climate change more explicit to increase engagement with the climate crisis. 2 41–43 The health framing of climate communication also has implications for healthcare professionals 44 and policy-makers, as these actors could play a key part in climate communication, adaptation and mitigation. 41 42 45 These key stakeholders’ perspectives on the climate-health link, as well as their perceived role in climate adaptation and mitigation could be explored, 46 since research suggests that health professionals are important voices in climate communications 44 and especially since, ultimately, these adverse health outcomes will engender pressure on and cost to our health systems and health workers.

Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, the current study provides the first broad overview of previous systematic reviews exploring the health impacts of climate change. Our review has three main strengths. First, by targeting systematic reviews, we achieve a higher order summary of findings than what would have been possible by consulting individual original studies. Second, by synthesising findings across all included studies and according to the combination of climate impact and health outcome, we offer a clear, detailed and unique summary of the current state of evidence and knowledge gaps about how climate change may influence human health. This summary may be of use to researchers, policy-makers and communities. Third, we included studies published in all languages about any climate impact and any health outcome. In doing so, we provide a comprehensive and robust overview.

Our work has four main limitations. First, we were unable to access some full texts and therefore some studies were excluded, even though we deemed them potentially relevant after title and abstract inspection. Other potentially relevant systematic reviews may be missing due to unseen flaws in our systematic search. Second, due to the heterogeneity of the included systematic reviews and the relatively small proportion of studies reporting meta-analytic findings, we could not conduct meta-meta-analyses of findings across reviews. Future research is needed to quantify the climate and health links described in this review, as well as to investigate the causal relationship and other interacting factors. Third, due to limited resources, we did not assess overlap between the included reviews concerning the studies they included. Frequencies and findings should be interpreted with potential overlap in mind. Fourth, we conducted the systematic search of the literature in June 2019, and it is therefore likely that some recent systematic reviews are not included in this study.

Overall, most systematic reviews of the health impacts of climate change suggest an association between climate change and the deterioration of health in multiple ways, generally in the direction that climate change is associated with adverse human health outcomes. This is worrisome since these outcomes are predicted to rise in the near future, due to the rise in temperature and increase in climate-change-related events such as extreme weather events and worsened air quality. Most studies included in this review focused on meteorological impacts of climate change on adverse physical health outcomes. Future studies could fill knowledge gaps by exploring other climate-related impacts and broader psychosocial health outcomes. Moreover, studies on health impacts of climate change have mostly been conducted by first authors affiliated with institutions in high-income countries. This inequity needs to be addressed, considering that the impacts of climate change are and will continue to predominantly impact lower income countries. Finally, although most reviews also recommend more research to better understand and quantify these associations, to adapt to and mitigate climate change’s impacts on health, it will also be important to unpack the ‘what, how, and where’ of these effects. Health effects of climate change are unlikely to be distributed equally or randomly through populations. It will be important to mitigate the changing climate’s potential to exacerbate health inequities.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Selma Chipenda Dansokho, as research associate, and Thierry Provencher, as research assistant, to this project, and of Frederic Bergeron, for assistance with search strategy, screening and selection of articles for the systematic review.

Twitter: @RutNdjab, @ATricco, @hwitteman

Contributors: RN, CF, ACT, HOW contributed to the design of the study. CB, RN, LPB, RAPR and HOW contributed to the systematic search of the literature and selection of studies. RR, HOW, LC conducted data analysis and interpretation. RR and HOW drafted the first version of the article with early revision by CB, LC and RN. All authors critically revised the article and approved the final version for submission for publication. RR and HOW had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Funding: This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) FDN-148426. The CIHR had no role in determining the study design, the plans for data collection or analysis, the decision to publish, nor the preparation of this manuscript. ACT is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. HOW is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Human-Centred Digital Health.

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Data availability statement

Ethics statements, patient consent for publication.

Not required.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Climate Change Research

Fifth national climate assessment.

It's Earth Month!

Check out NCA5, the most comprehensive analysis of the state of climate change in the United States.

Explore NCA5

EPA’s Climate Change Research seeks to improve our understanding of how climate change impacts human health and the environment.

Air Quality

Fluffy clouds in front of a blue sky, slightly obscuring the sun.

Researching how changes in climate can affect air quality.

Community Resilience

Aerial view of Chicago cityscape on a sunny day

Research to empower communities to become more resilient to climate change.

Ecosystems & Water Quality

Research to understand how climate change is affecting these resources now and in the future.

Researching how energy production will impact climate and the environment.

Human Health

Research to understand how a changing climate will impact human health.

Tools & Resources

Illustration of gears and puzzle pieces. Monotone blue color scheme.

Decision support tools, models & databases, research grants, outreach, and educational resources.

More Resources

Publications, Presentations, and Other Research Products in Science Inventory
Climate Change Research Milestones
EPA's Climate Change Homepage
EPA's Climate Adaptation Plan

Quick links

Climate change
COVID-19 research
Staff profiles

Climate change questions and answers

Why is our climate changing? What are the impacts? Here we address some of the common questions raised about the changing climate and the science involved in studying it.

What is climate change?

Climate change refers to any long-term trends or shifts in climate over many decades.

How has climate changed in the past?

There is a great deal of evidence that the Earth's climate has warmed over the past century, with recent years the warmest on record.

Why do sea levels change?

Sea levels can change for a variety of reasons over a range of different time scales.

How are large scale climate processes responding in a changing climate?

Large-scale climate processes, such as El Niño and the Indian Ocean Dipole, affect Australia’s climate. Climate change may make the impacts of these processes more extreme.

How is climate likely to change in the future?

The Earth's future climate will depend on whether the world manages to slow or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but warming is likely to continue.

How do greenhouse gases warm the planet?

The greenhouse effect keeps the Earth’s climate liveable, but human activities have increased the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the air, warming the planet and changing our climate.

What are the sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

About 90 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions comes from the burning of fossil fuels, and most of Australia’s emissions also comes from energy production, followed by transport, agriculture, and industrial processes.

How are greenhouse gases measured, estimated, and reported?

The Australian Government uses a ‘bottom-up’ approach to estimate the country’s greenhouse emissions, which is complemented by CSIRO measurements to provide ‘top-down’ estimates.

How can we address the causes of climate change?

We need to address climate change through mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation addresses the cause of climate change, primarily through emissions reductions.

How can we adapt to climate change?

Adaption to climate change can prepare communities, industries and infrastructure for the future. Adaptation can build resilience and reduce the risks posed by climate change, but there are barriers and limits. Some risks are unavoidable.

How does CSIRO contribute to climate change knowledge?

Our climate researchers contribute significantly to the international effort of weather and climate understanding.

What are the impacts of extreme weather and climate events?

Increases in extreme climate events pose challenges for Australia now and in the future.

How will climate extremes change Australia?

Australia experiences many different climate types across its large area, including a range of climate extremes from freezing mountains to scorching deserts. As climate changes, Australia’s weather and climate extremes will also change.

How fast is the climate changing?

While our climate has always changed, it is now changing at a rate that is unprecedented for many thousands of years and is due to human activities that emit greenhouse gases into the air.

How confident are we about the science of climate change?

The main impacts and mechanisms of physical climate change are scientifically well-understood, but specific estimates of these impacts are uncertain.

Where can I find more information about climate change?

Check where information comes from to ensure it is based on reliable and quality-assured sources of climate change science, such as peer-reviewed papers.

Find out how we can help you and your business. Get in touch using the form below and our experts will get in contact soon!

CSIRO will handle your personal information in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and our Privacy Policy .

Enter a valid email address, for example [email protected]

A Country value must be provided

First name must be filled in

Surname must be filled in

Please choose an option

Organisation must be filled in

Please provide a subject for the enquriy

We'll need to know what you want to contact us about so we can give you an answer

We have received your enquiry and will reply soon.

We're Sorry

The contact form is currently unavailable. Please try again later. If this problem persists, please call us with your enquiry on 1300 363 400 or +61 3 9545 2176. We are available from 9.00 am to 4.00 pm AEST Monday - Friday.

Green energy innovation initiatives for environmental sustainability: current state and future research directions

Review Article
Published: 24 April 2024

Cite this article

Karambir Singh Dhayal ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0000-4330 1 ,
Shruti Agrawal 2 ,
Rohit Agrawal 3 ,
Anil Kumar 4 , 5 &
Arun Kumar Giri 1

Worldwide, all countries have been facing the crisis of climate change problem. They have been addressing this issue by focusing on implementing green energy innovation initiatives and promoting a sustainable future through environmental sustainability. In this research study, we focus on examining the role of green finance through green energy innovations, which are taking place in several sectors across different regions to promote environmental sustainability. The study has analysed 152 articles on this research domain through a systematic literature review to understand the present state of existing knowledge. The current study examines the Scopus-indexed research articles from the time period 2002 to 2023. Six emerging themes have been examined to understand their development and the potential impact of green initiatives for environmental sustainability. Various institutional theories have been explored to understand their association with the investigated research area. The paper has discussed multiple challenges that need to be addressed for the speedy implementation of green innovations. Finally, future research questions have been proposed based on the findings from the extant literature and the existing research gaps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

No datasets were used during the current study.

Adnan N, Nordin SM, Bahruddin MA, Tareq AH (2019) A state-of-the-art review on facilitating sustainable agriculture through green fertilizer technology adoption: assessing farmers behavior. Trends Food Sci Technol 86:439–452

Article CAS Google Scholar

Agrawal R, Wankhede VA, Kumar A, Luthra S (2021) Analysing the roadblocks of circular economy adoption in the automobile sector: reducing waste and environmental perspectives. Bus Strateg Environ 30(2):1051–1066. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2669

Article Google Scholar

Akram R, Chen F, Khalid F, Ye Z, Majeed MT (2020) Heterogeneous effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy on carbon emissions: evidence from developing countries. J Clean Prod 247:119122. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.119122

Ali G, Nitivattananon V, Abbas S, Sabir M (2012) Green waste to biogas: renewable energy possibilities for Thailand’s green markets. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(7):5423–5429. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2012.05.021

Allen JG, MacNaughton P, Laurent JGC, Flanigan SS, Eitland ES, Spengler JD (2015) Green buildings and health. Current Environ Health Reports 2:250–258

Altomonte S, Schiavon S, Kent MG, Brager G (2019) Indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction in green-certified buildings. Build Res Inf 47(3):255–274

Andersen PH, Mathews JA, Rask M (2009) Integrating private transport into renewable energy policy: the strategy of creating intelligent recharging grids for electric vehicles. Energy Policy 37(7):2481–2486

Balaban O, de Oliveira JAP (2017) Sustainable buildings for healthier cities: assessing the co-benefits of green buildings in Japan. J Clean Prod 163:S68–S78

Bashir MF, Shahbaz M, Ma B, Alam K (2024) Evaluating the roles of energy innovation, fossil fuel costs and environmental compliance towards energy transition in advanced industrial economies. J Environ Manag 351:119709

Batool K, Ali G, Ullah Khan K, Asif Kamran M, Yan N (2024) Integrating role of green buildings in achieving carbon neutrality in an era of climate emergency. Sustain Dev. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2883

Bauwens T (2019) Analyzing the determinants of the size of investments by community renewable energy members: findings and policy implications from Flanders. Energy Policy 129:841–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2019.02.067

Björklund M (2011) Influence from the business environment on environmental purchasing — drivers and hinders of purchasing green transportation services. J Purch Supply Manag 17(1):11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2010.04.002

Brahmi M, Esposito L, Parziale A, Dhayal KS, Agrawal S, Giri AK, Loan NT (2023) The role of greener innovations in promoting financial inclusion to achieve carbon neutrality: an integrative review. Economies 11(7):194. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11070194

Cajias M, Piazolo D (2013) Green performs better: energy efficiency and financial return on buildings. J Corporate Real Estate 15(1):53–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-12-2012-0031/FULL/XML

Chegut A, Eichholtz P, Kok N (2014) Supply, demand and the value of green buildings. Urban Stud 51(1):22–43

Chel A, Kaushik G (2011) Renewable energy for sustainable agriculture. Agronom Sustain Dev 31(1):91–118. https://doi.org/10.1051/AGRO/2010029

Chen X, Yang H, Lu L (2015) A comprehensive review on passive design approaches in green building rating tools. Renew Sust Energ Rev 50:1425–1436

Chen Y, Lin B (2020) Slow diffusion of renewable energy technologies in China: an empirical analysis from the perspective of innovation system. J Clean Prod 261:121186

Chien F, Sadiq M, Nawaz MA, Hussain MS, Tran TD, Le Thanh T (2021) A step toward reducing air pollution in top Asian economies: the role of green energy, eco-innovation, and environmental taxes. J Environ Manag 297:113420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113420

Cihat K, Setareh K, Salih K (2021) The role of financial efficiency in renewable energy demand: evidence from OECD countries. J Environ Manag 285:112122. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2021.112122

Danish UR, Khan SUD (2020) Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustain Cities Soc 54:101996. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2019.101996

Darko A, Chan APC, Ameyaw EE, He BJ, Olanipekun AO (2017) Examining issues influencing green building technologies adoption: the United States green building experts’ perspectives. Energ Buildings 144:320–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2017.03.060

Dekker R, Bloemhof J, Mallidis I (2012) Operations research for green logistics–An overview of aspects, issues, contributions and challenges. Eur J Oper Res 219(3):671–679

Derviş H (2020) Bibliometric analysis using Bibliometrix an R package. J Sci Res 8(3):156–160. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.8.3.32

Dhayal KS, Giri AK, Esposito L, Agrawal S (2023a) Mapping the significance of green venture capital for sustainable development: a systematic review and future research agenda. J Clean Prod 396:136489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136489

Dhayal KS, Giri AK, Kumar A, Samadhiya A, Agrawal S, Agrawal R (2023b) Can green finance facilitate Industry 5.0 transition to achieve sustainability? A systematic review with future research directions. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29539-w

Elahi E, Khalid Z, Zhang Z (2022) Understanding farmers’ intention and willingness to install renewable energy technology: a solution to reduce the environmental emissions of agriculture. Appl Energy 309:118459

Ellabban O, Abu-Rub H, Blaabjerg F (2014) Renewable energy resources: current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renew Sust Energ Rev 39:748–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.07.113

Fang W, Liu Z, Surya Putra AR (2022) Role of research and development in green economic growth through renewable energy development: empirical evidence from South Asia. Renew Energy 194:1142–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2022.04.125

Franceschinis C, Thiene M, Scarpa R, Rose J, Moretto M, Cavalli R (2017) Adoption of renewable heating systems: an empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory. Energy 125:313–326

Geng Y, Ji W, Wang Z, Lin B, Zhu Y (2019) A review of operating performance in green buildings: Energy use, indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction. Energ Build 183:500–514

Ghaffarian Hoseini A, Dahlan ND, Berardi U, GhaffarianHoseini A, Makaremi N, GhaffarianHoseini M (2013) Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: a review of current theories, implementations and challenges. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:1–17

Gielen D, Boshell F, Saygin D, Bazilian MD, Wagner N, Gorini R (2019) The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energ Strat Rev 24:38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESR.2019.01.006

Goess S, De Jong M, Ravesteijn W (2015) What makes renewable energy successful in China? The case of the Shandong province solar water heater innovation system. Energy Policy 86:684–696

Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P (2013) Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care 2(1):9. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934

Grossi LB, Lange LC, Amaral MCS (2024) Transition pathway towards more sustainable waste management practices for end-of-life reverse osmosis membranes: challenges and opportunities in Brazil. J Clean Prod 435:140571

Guo Z, Sun Y, Pan SY, Chiang PC (2019) Integration of green energy and advanced energy-efficient technologies for municipal wastewater treatment plants. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(7):1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH16071282

Hainsch K, Löffler K, Burandt T, Auer H, del Granado PC, Pisciella P, Zwickl-Bernhard S (2022) Energy transition scenarios: what policies, societal attitudes, and technology developments will realize the EU Green Deal? Energy 239:122067

Han H, Lee JS, Trang HLT, Kim W (2018) Water conservation and waste reduction management for increasing guest loyalty and green hotel practices. Int J Hosp Manag 75:58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHM.2018.03.012

Hao X, Li Y, Ren S, Wu H, Hao Y (2023) The role of digitalization on green economic growth: does industrial structure optimization and green innovation matter? J Environ Manag 325:116504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116504

He B-J (2019) Towards the next generation of green building for urban heat island mitigation: zero UHI impact building. Sustain Cities Soc 50:101647

He P, Zhang J, Li W (2021) The role of agricultural green production technologies in improving low-carbon efficiency in China: necessary but not effective. J Environ Manag 293:112837

Horbach J, Rammer C (2018) Energy transition in Germany and regional spill-overs: the diffusion of renewable energy in firms. Energy Policy 121:404–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.042

Horlings LG, Marsden TK (2011) Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’. Glob Environ Chang 21(2):441–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.004

IEA (2021) World energy outlook 2021. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021 . Accessed 29 Aug 2023

IPCC (2023) Climate change 2023: synthesis report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ . Accessed 29 Aug 2023

IRENA (2023a) Global landscape of renewable energy finance 2023. https://www.irena.org/Publications/2023/Feb/Global-landscape-of-renewable-energy-finance-2023 . Accessed 29 Aug 2023

IRENA (2023b) World energy transitions outlook. https://www.irena.org/Publications/2023/Mar/World-Energy-Transitions-Outlook-2023 . Accessed 29 Aug 2023

Iris Ç, Lam JSL (2019) A review of energy efficiency in ports: operational strategies, technologies and energy management systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev 112:170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2019.04.069

Islam MT, Huda N, Baumber A, Shumon R, Zaman A, Ali F, Hossain R, Sahajwalla V (2021) A global review of consumer behavior towards e-waste and implications for the circular economy. J Clean Prod 316:128297. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.128297

Jahanshahi D, Tabibi Z, Van Wee B (2020) Factors influencing the acceptance and use of a bicycle sharing system: applying an extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Case Stud Trans Policy 8(4):1212–1223

Jia L, Xu R, Shen ZY, Song M (2023) Which type of innovation is more conducive to inclusive green growth: independent innovation or imitation innovation? J Clean Prod 406:137026. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2023.137026

Jiang Z, Lyu P, Ye L, Zhou YW (2020) Green innovation transformation, economic sustainability and energy consumption during China’s new normal stage. J Clean Prod 273:123044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123044

Jørgensen U (2005) Energy sector in transition—technologies and regulatory policies in flux. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72(6):719–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.12.004

Kharola S, Ram M, Kumar Mangla S, Goyal N, Nautiyal OP, Pant D, Kazancoglu Y (2022) Exploring the green waste management problem in food supply chains: a circular economy context. J Clean Prod 351:131355. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2022.131355

Kougias I, Taylor N, Kakoulaki G, Jäger-Waldau A (2021) The role of photovoltaics for the European Green Deal and the recovery plan. Renew Sust Energ Rev 144:111017

Larina IV, Larin AN, Kiriliuk O, Ingaldi M (2021) Green logistics-modern transportation process technology. Prod Eng Arch 27(3):184–190

Lenberg P, Feldt R, Wallgren LG (2015) Behavioral software engineering: A definition and systematic literature review. J Syst Softw 107:15–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSS.2015.04.084

Li B, Chen Y, Cao S (2023) Carrot and stick: does dual-credit policy promote green innovation in auto firms? J Clean Prod 403:136863. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2023.136863

Li L (2011) Application of the internet of thing in green agricultural products supply chain management. In: 2011 Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation, 1. IEEE, pp 1022–1025

Chapter Google Scholar

Li M, Hamawandy NM, Wahid F, Rjoub H, Bao Z (2021) Renewable energy resources investment and green finance: evidence from China. Res Policy 74:102402. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESOURPOL.2021.102402

Li M, Wang J, Zhao P, Chen K, Wu L (2020) Factors affecting the willingness of agricultural green production from the perspective of farmers’ perceptions. Sci Total Environ 738:140289

Liu D, Zhu X, Wang Y (2021) China’s agricultural green total factor productivity based on carbon emission: an analysis of evolution trend and influencing factors. J Clean Prod 278:123692

Liu Y, Feng C (2019) What drives the fluctuations of “green” productivity in China’s agricultural sector? A weighted Russell directional distance approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 147:201–213

Liu Y, Guo X, Hu F (2014) Cost-benefit analysis on green building energy efficiency technology application: a case in China. Energ Buildings 82:37–46

Liu Y, Sun D, Wang H, Wang X, Yu G, Zhao X (2020) An evaluation of China’s agricultural green production: 1978–2017. J Clean Prod 243:118483

Lu J, Rong D, Lev B, Liang M, Zhang C, Gao Y (2023) Constraints affecting the promotion of waste incineration power generation project in China: a perspective of improved technology acceptance model. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 186:122165

Lu S, Fan M, Zhao Y (2018) A system to pre-evaluate the suitability of energy-saving technology for green buildings. Sustainability 10(10):3777. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU10103777

Mandeep KG, G., & Shukla, P. (2020) Insights into the resources generation from pulp and paper industry wastes: challenges, perspectives and innovations. Bioresour Technol 297:122496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122496

Manzetti S, Mariasiu F (2015) Electric vehicle battery technologies: from present state to future systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev 51:1004–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.010

McCauley SM, Stephens JC (2012) Green energy clusters and socio-technical transitions: analysis of a sustainable energy cluster for regional economic development in Central Massachusetts, USA. Sustain Sci 7(2):213–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0164-6

Mehmood S, Zaman K, Khan S, Ali Z (2024) The role of green industrial transformation in mitigating carbon emissions: exploring the channels of technological innovation and environmental regulation. Energy Built Environ 5(3):464–479

Mollaoglu S, Chergia C, Ergen E, Syal M (2016) Diffusion of green building guidelines as innovation in developing countries. Constr Innov 16(1):11–29

Nandy S, Fortunato E, Martins R (2022) Green economy and waste management: an inevitable plan for materials science. Prog Nat Sci: Mater Int 32(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PNSC.2022.01.001

Nchofoung TN, Fotio HK, Miamo CW (2023) Green taxation and renewable energy technologies adoption: a global evidence. Renew Energy Focus 44:334–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.REF.2023.01.010

Ni L, Ahmad SF, Alshammari TO, Liang H, Alsanie G, Irshad M, Alyafi-AlZahri R, BinSaeed RH, Al-Abyadh MHA, Abu Bakir SMM, Ayassrah AYABA (2023) The role of environmental regulation and green human capital towards sustainable development: the mediating role of green innovation and industry upgradation. J Clean Prod 421:138497. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2023.138497

Nilsson M, Nykvist B (2016) Governing the electric vehicle transition – near term interventions to support a green energy economy. Appl Energy 179:1360–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.056

Ouyang X, Xu M (2022) Promoting green transportation under the belt and Road Initiative: Locating charging stations considering electric vehicle users’ travel behavior. Transp Policy 116:58–80

Paes LAB, Bezerra BS, Deus RM, Jugend D, Battistelle RAG (2019) Organic solid waste management in a circular economy perspective – a systematic review and SWOT analysis. J Clean Prod 239:118086. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.118086

Pan D, Wang B, Li J, Wu F (2024) Exploring the user adoption mechanism of green transportation services in the context of the electricity–carbon market synergy. Energies 17(1):274. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17010274

Paris B, Vandorou F, Balafoutis AT, Vaiopoulos K, Kyriakarakos G, Manolakos D, Papadakis G (2022) Energy use in open-field agriculture in the EU: a critical review recommending energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources adoption. Renew Sust Energ Rev 158:112098

Paul J, Lim WM, O’Cass A, Hao AW, Bresciani S (2021) Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). Int J Consum Stud 45(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695

Pazirandeh A, Jafari H (2013) Making sense of green logistics. Int J Product Perform Manag 62(8):889–904. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2013-0059

Perathoner S, Centi G (2014) CO 2 recycling: a key strategy to introduce green energy in the chemical production chain. ChemSusChem 7(5):1274–1282. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201300926

Psaraftis HN (2016) Green transportation logistics. In: The quest for win-win solutions. Springer, Cham

Google Scholar

Rasoulinezhad E, Taghizadeh-Hesary F (2022) Role of green finance in improving energy efficiency and renewable energy development. Energ Effic 15(2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12053-022-10021-4/TABLES/11

Rastogi RP, Pandey A, Larroche C, Madamwar D (2018) Algal green energy – R&D and technological perspectives for biodiesel production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82:2946–2969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.038

Renewables Global Status Report. (2023). REN21. https://www.ren21.net/gsr-2023/

Rezaei R, Ghofranfarid M (2018) Rural households’ renewable energy usage intention in Iran: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Renew Energy 122:382–391

Ridzuan AR, Dash SK, Porwal A, Dhayal KS, Rahman NHA, Omran M (2023) The green effect: exploring the impact of innovation and foreign direct investment on environmental quality in Malaysia. Int J Energy Econ Policy 13(5):54–61. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.14585

Ries R, Bilec MM, Gokhan NM, Needy KL (2006) The economic benefits of green buildings: a comprehensive case study. Eng Econ 51(3):259–295

Ringel M, Bruch N, Knodt M (2021) Is clean energy contested? Exploring which issues matter to stakeholders in the European Green Deal. Energy Res Soc Sci 77:102083

Ringel M, Schlomann B, Krail M, Rohde C (2016) Towards a green economy in Germany? The role of energy efficiency policies. Appl Energy 179:1293–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2016.03.063

Sarc R, Curtis A, Kandlbauer L, Khodier K, Lorber KE, Pomberger R (2019) Digitalisation and intelligent robotics in value chain of circular economy oriented waste management – a review. Waste Manag 95:476–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2019.06.035

Shah KJ, Pan S-Y, Lee I, Kim H, You Z, Zheng J-M, Chiang P-C (2021) Green transportation for sustainability: Review of current barriers, strategies, and innovative technologies. J Clean Prod 326:129392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129392

Shen J, Zhu Q, Jiao X, Ying H, Wang H, Wen X, Xu W, Li T, Cong W, Liu X (2020) Agriculture green development: a model for China and the world. Front Agricult Sci Eng 7(1):5–13

Shouket B, Zaman K, Nassani AA, Aldakhil AM, Abro MMQ (2019) Management of green transportation: an evidence-based approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(12):12574–12589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04748-4

Stevens KA, Tang T, Hittinger E (2023) Innovation in complementary energy technologies from renewable energy policies. Renew Energy 209:431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2023.03.115

Suki NM, Suki NM, Sharif A, Afshan S, Jermsittiparsert K (2022) The role of technology innovation and renewable energy in reducing environmental degradation in Malaysia: a step towards sustainable environment. Renew Energy 182:245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.007

Sun Y, Li M, Zhang M, Khan HSUD, Li J, Li Z, Sun H, Zhu Y, Anaba OA (2021) A study on China’s economic growth, green energy technology, and carbon emissions based on the Kuznets curve (EKC). Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(6):7200–7211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11019-0

Sun Y, Razzaq A, Sun H, Irfan M (2022) The asymmetric influence of renewable energy and green innovation on carbon neutrality in China: analysis from non-linear ARDL model. Renew Energy 193:334–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.159

Toft MB, Schuitema G, Thøgersen J (2014) Responsible technology acceptance: model development and application to consumer acceptance of smart grid technology. Appl Energy 134:392–400

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Trappey AJC, Trappey C, Hsiao CT, Ou JJR, Li SJ, Chen KWP (2012) An evaluation model for low carbon island policy: the case of Taiwan’s green transportation policy. Energy Policy 45:510–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.063

Tsui TH, Wong JWC (2019) A critical review: emerging bioeconomy and waste-to-energy technologies for sustainable municipal solid waste management. Waste Disposal Sustain Energy3 1(3):151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/S42768-019-00013-Z

UNEP. (2022a). Emissions gap report (EGR) 2022: The closing window – climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022

UNEP. (2022b). Emissions gap report 2022. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022

Upadhyay A, Kumar A, Kumar V, Alzaben A (2021) A novel business strategies framework of do-it-yourself practices in logistics to minimise environmental waste and improve performance. Bus Strateg Environ 30(8):3882–3892. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2846

Von Paumgartten P (2003) The business case for high performance green buildings: sustainability and its financial impact. J Facil Manag 2(1):26–34

Wang C, Che Y, Xia M, Lin C, Chen Y, Li X, Chen H, Luo J, Fan G (2024a) The evolution and future directions of green buildings research: a scientometric analysis. Buildings 14(2):345

Wang J, Han X, Liu W, Ni C, Wu S (2024b) Comprehensive assessment system and spatial difference analysis on development level of green sustainable agriculture based on life cycle and SA-PP model. J Clean Prod 434:139724

Wang X, Lu Y, Chen C, Yi X, Cui H (2024c) Total-factor energy efficiency of ten major global energy-consuming countries. J Environ Sci 137:41–52

Wuni IY, Shen GQP, Osei-Kyei R (2019) Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018. Energ Buildings 190:69–85

Xing H, Husain S, Simionescu M, Ghosh S, Zhao X (2024) Role of green innovation technologies and urbanization growth for energy demand: contextual evidence from G7 countries. Gondwana Res 129:220–238

Yang J, Wang Y, Tang C, Zhang Z (2024) Can digitalization reduce industrial pollution? Roles of environmental investment and green innovation. Environ Res 240:117442

Yusoff S (2006) Renewable energy from palm oil – innovation on effective utilization of waste. J Clean Prod 14(1):87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.07.005

Zarnikau J (2003) Consumer demand for ‘green power’ and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 31(15):1661–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00232-X

Zeng Q, Destek MA, Khan Z, Badeeb RA, Zhang C (2024) Green innovation, foreign investment and carbon emissions: a roadmap to sustainable development via green energy and energy efficiency for BRICS economies. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 31(2):191–205

Zhang D, Zheng M, Feng GF, Chang CP (2022) Does an environmental policy bring to green innovation in renewable energy? Renew Energy 195:1113–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2022.06.074

Zhang L, Wu J, Liu H (2018) Turning green into gold: A review on the economics of green buildings. J Clean Prod 172:2234–2245

Zhao Y, Zhao Z, Qian Z, Zheng L, Fan S, Zuo S (2023) Is cooperative green innovation better for carbon reduction? Evidence from China. J Clean Prod 394:136400. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2023.136400

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics and Finance, Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani, India

Karambir Singh Dhayal & Arun Kumar Giri

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

Shruti Agrawal

Operations Management and Quantitative Techniques, Indian Institute of Management, Bodhgaya, Bihar, India

Rohit Agrawal

Guildhall School of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, London, UK

Department of Management Studies, Graphic Era (Deemed to be University), Dehradu, Uttarakhand, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Karambir Singh Dhayal: conceptualization, formal analysis, software, methodology, and writing—original draft and review and editing. Shruti Agarwal: software and validation and writing—original draft, review, and editing. Rohit Agrawal: validation, supervision, project administration, and writing—review and editing. Anil Kumar: project administration, supervision, validation, and writing—review and editing. Arun Kumar Giri: validation and writing—review and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karambir Singh Dhayal .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

The corresponding author Karambir Singh Dhayal confirms that the manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all authors.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Dhayal, K.S., Agrawal, S., Agrawal, R. et al. Green energy innovation initiatives for environmental sustainability: current state and future research directions. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33286-x

Download citation

Received : 19 September 2023

Accepted : 07 April 2024

Published : 24 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33286-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Green innovation
Sustainability
Green finance
Green initiative strategies
Net-zero buildings
Green and sustainable agriculture (GASA)
Sustainable waste management
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans continue to have doubts about climate scientists’ understanding of climate change

Only about one-third of Americans think climate scientists understand very well whether climate change is happening, according to a new Pew Research Center survey . And only about a quarter or less say climate scientists understand very well the effect climate change has on extreme weather, its causes and the best ways to address it.

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ views of how much climate scientists understand key aspects of climate change, and their role in policy debates on this topic. Read the accompanying report for more on Americans’ views of future harms from climate change.

This survey was conducted among 8,842 U.S. adults from Sept. 25 to Oct. 1, 2023. Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race and ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its methodology .

Americans rate climate scientists’ understanding of aspects of climate change slightly lower than they did two years ago and the same or lower than in 2016.

A stacked bar chart showing that modest shares of Americans say climate scientists understand key aspects of climate change very well.

The share of Americans who say climate scientists understand very well whether climate change is occurring decreased from 37% in 2021 to 32% this year.

Similarly, the share of Americans who say climate scientists understand the causes of climate change very well decreased slightly from 28% in 2021 to 24% today. And only 13% of Americans now say climate scientists understand very well the best ways to address climate change, down from 18% in 2021.

Analysis of recent scientific publications finds widespread agreement among climate scientists that human activity is the primary cause of climate change. The Center recently conducted in-depth interviews to better understand the views of adults who say climate change is not an urgent issue and are unconvinced human activity is its main cause.

Partisan differences in views of climate scientists

Democrats continue to rate climate scientists’ understanding much higher than Republicans do.

A horizontal stacked bar chart showing that partisans view climate scientists’ understanding of aspects of climate change very differently.

When asked how well climate scientists understand whether climate change is happening, 52% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say climate scientists understand this very well . In comparison, 51% of Republicans and Republican leaners say climate scientists understand this not too or not at all well .

Democrats are also four times as likely as Republicans to say climate scientists understand very well how climate change affects extreme weather events (40% vs. 10%). Scientific studies have found that extreme weather events will become more frequent and intense with climate change .

When it comes to the causes of climate change, 41% of Democrats say climate scientists understand this very well, compared with 7% of Republicans. About six-in-ten Republicans (59%) say climate scientists understand this not too or at all well.

Small shares of both Democrats and Republicans say climate scientists understand very well the best ways to address climate change, though Democrats are more likely to say this (23% vs. 4%, respectively). Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to say climate scientists understand this not too or at all well (71% vs. 24%).

Differences by education level and party

Democrats with more education rate climate scientists’ understanding higher than Democrats with less education. But how Republicans rate scientists’ understanding of aspects of climate change does not differ by education level. For example:

A bar chart showing that ratings of scientists’ understanding of climate change vary by education level among Democrats but not Republicans.

72% of Democrats with a postgraduate degree say climate scientists understand very well whether climate change is occurring. In comparison, 36% of Democrats with a high school degree or less say this – a 36 percentage point difference.
Small shares of Republicans across education levels think climate scientists understand very well whether climate change is happening: 13% of Republicans with a postgraduate degree say this, as do 10% of Republicans with a high school degree or less.

These patterns also hold when Democrats and Republicans are asked about climate scientists’ understanding of the causes of climate change and its effect on extreme weather.

Past Center surveys have found that views about the role of human activity also vary by education level among Democrats but not Republicans.

Views of climate scientists’ influence on policy

When asked about climate scientists’ role in policy debates about climate change, half of Americans say they have too little influence. This share is down 4 points from 2021.

Smaller shares say climate scientists have too much (26%) or about the right amount of influence (22%) in policy debates.

In keeping with the wide partisan differences in ratings of climate scientists’ understanding of aspects of climate change, Democrats and Republicans are deeply divided about the appropriate role of climate scientists in policy debates.

A horizontal stacked bar chart showing that partisans differ on climate scientists’ role in policy debates about climate change.

Three-quarters of Democrats say climate scientists have too little influence in policy debates about climate change, while one-quarter of Republicans say the same – a difference of 50 points. About half of Republicans (49%) think climate scientists have too much influence.

There are also ideological divides within the GOP on climate scientists’ policy influence. Conservative Republicans are about twice as likely as moderate and liberal Republicans to say climate scientists have too much influence in public policy debates (60% vs. 29%).

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its methodology .

Climate, Energy & Environment
Partisanship & Issues
Trust in Science

Giancarlo Pasquini is a research associate focusing on science and society research at Pew Research Center

Brian Kennedy is a senior researcher focusing on science and society research at Pew Research Center

How Republicans view climate change and energy issues

How americans view future harms from climate change in their community and around the u.s., growing share of americans favor more nuclear power, why some americans do not see urgency on climate change, what the data says about americans’ views of climate change, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
NEWS EXPLAINER
16 April 2024

Do climate lawsuits lead to action? Researchers assess their impact

Carissa Wong

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

More people are filing lawsuits against governments and corporations for not doing enough to combat climate change. Credit: Suleiman Mbatiah/AFP via Getty

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Climate litigation is in the spotlight again after a landmark decision last week. The top European human-rights court deemed that the Swiss government was violating its citizens’ human rights through its lack of climate action. The case, brought by more than 2,000 older women , is one of more than 2,300 climate lawsuits that have been filed against companies and governments around the world (see ‘Climate cases soar’).

But does legal action relating to climate change make a difference to nations’ and corporations’ actions? Litigation is spurring on governments and companies to ramp up climate measures, say researchers.

‘Truly historic’: How science helped kids win a landmark climate trial

“There are a number of notable climate wins in court that have led to action by governments,” says Lucy Maxwell, a human-rights lawyer and co-director of the Climate Litigation Network, a non-profit organization in London.

Nature explores whether lawsuits are making a difference in the fight against global warming.

What have climate court cases achieved?

One pivotal case that spurred on change was brought against the Dutch government in 2013, by the Urgenda Foundation, an environmental group based in Zaandam, the Netherlands, along with some 900 Dutch citizens. The court ordered the government to reduce the country’s greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, a target that the government met. As a result, in 2021, the government announced an investment of €6.8 billion (US$7.2 billion) toward climate measures. It also passed a law to phase out the use of coal-fired power by 2030 and, as pledged, closed a coal-production plant by 2020, says Maxwell.

CLIMATE CASES SOAR. Chart shows a steep increase in legal cases relating to climate change have been filed in courts since 1986.

Source: Grantham Research Institute/Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

In 2020, young environmental activists in Germany, backed by organizations such as Greenpeace, won a case arguing that the German government’s target of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 55% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels was insufficient to limit global temperature rise to “well below 2 ºC”, the goal of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. As a result, the government strengthened its emissions-reduction target to a 65% cut by 2030, and set a goal to reduce emissions by 88% by 2040. It also brought forward a target to reach ‘climate neutrality’ — ensuring that greenhouse-gas emissions are equal to or less than the emissions absorbed from the atmosphere by natural processes — by 2045 instead of 2050. “In the Netherlands and Germany, action was taken immediately after court orders,” says Maxwell.

In its 2022 report , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged for the first time that climate litigation can cause an “increase in a country’s overall ambition to tackle climate change”.

“That was a big moment for climate litigation, because it did really show how it can impact states’ ambition,” says Maria Antonia Tigre, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University in New York City.

What about cases that fail?

Cases that fail in court can be beneficial, says Joana Setzer at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

In a 2015 case called Juliana v. United States , a group of young people sued the US government for not doing enough to slow down climate change, which they said violated their constitutional right to life and liberty. “This is a case that has faced many legal hurdles, that didn’t result in the court mandating policy change. But it has raised public awareness of climate issues and helped other cases,” says Setzer.

One lawsuit that benefited from the Juliana case was won last year by young people in Montana , says Setzer. The court ruled that the state was violating the plaintiffs’ right to a “clean and healthful environment”, by permitting fossil-fuel development without considering its effects on the climate. The ruling means that the state must consider climate change when approving or renewing fossil-fuel projects.

What happens when people sue corporations?

In a working paper , Setzer and her colleagues found that climate litigation against corporations can dent the firms’ share prices. The researchers analysed 108 climate lawsuits filed between 2005 to 2021 against public US and European corporations. They found that case filings and court judgments against big fossil-fuel firms, such as Shell and BP, saw immediate drops in the companies’ overall valuations and share prices. “We find that, especially after 2019, there is a more significant drop in share prices,” says Setzer. “This sends a strong message to investors, and to the companies themselves, that there is a reputational damage that can result from this litigation,” she says.

In an analysis of 120 climate cases, published on 17 April by the Grantham Research Institute, Setzer’s team found that climate litigation can curb greenwashing in companies’ advertisements — this includes making misleading statements about how climate-friendly certain products are, or disinformation about the effects of climate change. “With litigation being brought, companies are definitely communicating differently and being more cautious,” she says.

What’s coming next in climate litigation?

Maxwell thinks that people will bring more lawsuits that demand compensation from governments and companies for loss and damage caused by climate change. And more cases will be focused on climate adaptation — suing governments for not doing enough to prepare for and adjust to the effects of climate change, she says. In an ongoing case from 2015, Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya argued that RWE, Germany’s largest electricity producer, should contribute to the cost of protecting his hometown from floods caused by a melting glacier. He argued that planet-heating greenhouse gases emitted by RWE increase the risk of flooding.

More cases will be challenging an over-reliance by governments on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies — which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it underground — in reaching emissions targets, says Maxwell. CCS technologies have not yet proved to work at a large scale. For instance, in February, researchers criticized the European Union for relying too much on CCS in its plans to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 90% by 2040 compared with 1990 levels.

“There is a tendency now for companies and governments to say, we’ll use carbon capture, we’ll find some technology,” says Setzer. “In the courts, we’ll start seeing to what extent you can count on the future technologies, to what extent you really have to start acting now.”

What about lower-income countries?

There will also be more climate cases filed in the global south, which generally receive less attention than those in the global north, says Antonia Tigre. “There is more funding now being channelled to the global south for bringing these types of cases,” she says. This month, India’s supreme court ruled that people have a fundamental right to be free from the negative effects of climate change.

Last week’s Swiss success demonstrates that people can hold polluters to account through lawsuits, say researchers. “Litigation allows stakeholders who often don't get a seat at the table to be involved in pushing for further action,” says Antonia Tigre.

Maxwell thinks that the judgment will influence lawsuits worldwide. “It sends a very clear message to governments,” she says. “To comply with their human-rights obligations, countries need to have science-based, rapid, ambitious climate action.”

Nature 628 , 698-699 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01081-w

Reprints and permissions

Climate change

European ruling linking climate change to human rights could be a game changer — here’s how

World View 23 APR 24

Exclusive: official investigation reveals how superconductivity physicist faked blockbuster results

News 06 APR 24

Is IVF at risk in the US? Scientists fear for the fertility treatment’s future

News 02 APR 24

Ecologists: don’t lose touch with the joy of fieldwork

World View 24 APR 24

The Maldives is racing to create new land. Why are so many people concerned?

News Feature 24 APR 24

Postdoctoral Associate- Computational Spatial Biology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Staff Scientist - Genetics and Genomics

Technician - senior technician in cell and molecular biology.

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 24.05.2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a distinguished life science research institute founded and supported by the Italian ...

Human Technopole

Postdoctoral Fellow

The Dubal Laboratory of Neuroscience and Aging at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) seeks postdoctoral fellows to investigate the ...

San Francisco, California

University of California, San Francsico

Postdoctoral Associate

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

IMAGES

Climate Change Science White Paper
≫ Global Climate Change Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
Climate change research questions worksheet
Frequently Asked Questions about Climate Change
The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof
Climate change (2)

COMMENTS

Climate Change Research Topics
Climate change research paper topics vary from anthropogenic climate to physical risks of abrupt climate change. Papers should focus on a specific climate change research question. Read on to learn more about examples of climate change research topics and questions. ... To create a strong climate change research question, start settling on the ...
100 Best Climate Change Topics For Research Papers
Perhaps, you want to write an essay or paper about something interesting. In that case, consider this list of interesting climate change research paper topics. Climate change across the globe- What experts say. Development, climate change, and disaster reduction. Critical review- Climate change and agriculture.
A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and
Furthermore, this study analyzes closely related areas to provide unique research opportunities in the future. The study also discussed future direction opportunities and research questions by understanding the research findings climate changes and other affected sectors. The reviewed paper framework analysis process is outlined in Fig. 2.
Climate change
Climate change refers to a statistically defined change in the average and/or variability of the climate system, this includes the atmosphere, the water cycle, the land surface, ice and the living ...
Climate change research and the search for solutions: rethinking
In particular, the search for solutions to climate change forces us to examine the way different disciplines interact in this process, most prominently through interdisciplinary research approaches (Castree et al. 2014 ). In response to pressure for concrete, urgent, and actionable information, however, researchers often shear away detail, and ...
Research articles
Climate change has led to increased fire activity in parts of the globe due to observed increases in fire weather extremes. These trends are driven predominantly by decreasing relative humidity ...
Powers of qualitative research
45 Altmetric. Metrics. Old-fashioned qualitative research methods are still powerful in answering the most emergent climate questions we are faced with. In natural and social science studies ...
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
Buy Ebook: $23.99. Epub, Kindle, MobiPocket. What is an Ebook? The warming of the Earth has been the subject of intense debate and concern for many scientists, policy-makers, and citizens for at least the past decade. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, a new report by a committee of the National Research Council ...
Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions
The rapid anthropogenic climate change that is being experienced in the early twenty-first century is intimately entwined with the health and functioning of the biosphere. ... The papers in this section advance our thinking about the effects of climate change on ecosystem properties (biological diversity, trophic webs or energy flux, nutrient ...
A Framework for Climate Change-Related Research to Inform Environmental
Research intended to support environmental protection by providing the best available science to decision makers implementing national, state, provincial, tribal, and municipal environmental laws must take into account that such actions are now, and increasingly will be, influenced by climate change. This paper puts forward a framework for the ...
Six Tough Questions About Climate Change
Renée Cho. NASA's supercomputer model created this simulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Whenever the focus is on climate change, as it is right now at the Paris climate conference, tough questions are asked concerning the costs of cutting carbon emissions, the feasibility of transitioning to renewable energy, and whether it's ...
Researching Climate Change
Climate change research involves numerous disciplines of Earth system science as well as technology, engineering, and programming. Some major areas of climate change research include water, energy, ecosystems, air quality, solar physics, glaciology, human health, wildfires, and land use. To have a complete picture of how the climate changes and ...
Climate change mitigation and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence
Climate change mitigation research relies significantly on Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) to provide a comprehensive perspective on the interactions between socio-economic systems and earth systems. Existing models do not fully capture all development dimensions or climate change adaptation though efforts are underway. Future research can ...
Research Guides: Climate Change
Well-established policy research institute that offers an online library of information materials on climate change and related topics, such as energy, biodiversity and forests. Publicizes its research output through email newsletters and on various social media channels.
Your most pressing climate questions
But on the core issues of climate change, he pointed out, the science is largely settled. "A lot of the most basic questions people have about climate change were answered by scientists long ago ...
Research for climate adaptation
Adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects. Regardless of how quickly societies decarbonize, global temperatures are already more than 1 °C above ...
The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof
Average global temperatures have increased by 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.2 degrees Celsius, since 1880, with the greatest changes happening in the late 20th century. Land areas have warmed more ...
Frequently Asked Questions About Climate Change
The 2018 National Climate Assessment, developed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program—which is composed of 13 federal scientific agencies—concluded that scientific evidence consistently points to human activities, rather than natural climate trends, as the "dominant cause" behind the rapid global temperature increase of 1.8°F from ...
The most influential climate change papers of all time
A few decades later, a paper by Guy Callendar in 1938 linked the increase in carbon dioxide concentration over the previous 50 years to rising temperatures. Entitled, "The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature," the paper marked an important step forward in climate change research, says Andrew Solow, director of the Woods Hole Marine Policy centre and ...
Climate Change Research
It provides thermal infrared measurements of Earth's surface that help answer questions about water stress in plants and how specific regions respond to climate change. Research confirmed the accuracy of ECOSTRESS surface estimates 1 and found that the process of photosynthesis in plants begins to fail at 46.7 degrees C (114 degrees F). 2 ...
Original research: Health effects of climate change: an overview of
The climate-health link has been the target of more research in recent years and it is also receiving increasing attention from the public and in both public health and climate communication literature. 2 39-41 However, the health framing of climate change information is still underused in climate communications, and researchers suggest we ...
Climate Change Research
Access Climate Change Research Tools & Resources. Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem. Last updated on April 16, 2024. EPA conducts research to understand the environmental and health impacts of climate change and to provide sustainable solutions for adapting to and reducing the impact from a changing climate.
Research articles
Climate change will affect the adoption of residential rooftop solar photovoltaics by changing the patterns of both electricity generation and demand. This research projects that climate change ...
Climate change questions and answers
Here we address some of the common questions raised about the changing climate and the science involved in studying it. ... Research Work with us Careers Education ... Check where information comes from to ensure it is based on reliable and quality-assured sources of climate change science, such as peer-reviewed papers.
Geological Journal: Call for Papers
Energy, Resources, and Climate Change. Submission deadline: Tuesday, 31 December 2024. The emphasis on energy, resources, and climate change is critical for producing sustainable energy, protecting natural resources for future generations, and reducing the impact of climate change. The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy marks a ...
Green energy innovation initiatives for environmental ...
Worldwide, all countries have been facing the crisis of climate change problem. They have been addressing this issue by focusing on implementing green energy innovation initiatives and promoting a sustainable future through environmental sustainability. In this research study, we focus on examining the role of green finance through green energy innovations, which are taking place in several ...
Climate change and human behaviour
During the Climate Change Conference (COP21) of the United Nations in Paris 2015, 196 parties adopted a legally binding treaty with the aim to limit global warming to ideally 1.5 °C and a maximum ...
On climate change, Americans doubt scientists ...
Americans rate climate scientists' understanding of aspects of climate change slightly lower than they did two years ago and the same or lower than in 2016. The share of Americans who say climate scientists understand very well whether climate change is occurring decreased from 37% in 2021 to 32% this year. Similarly, the share of Americans ...
Do climate lawsuits lead to action? Researchers assess their impact
Researchers assess their impact. Litigation can lead governments to strengthen their climate policies and curb companies' greenwashing, say scientists. By. Carissa Wong. More people are filing ...

The Top 10 Most Interesting Climate Change Research Topics

Find your bootcamp match

Tips for Choosing a Climate Change Research Topic

What’s the Difference Between a Research Topic and a Research Question?

How to Create Strong Climate Change Research Questions

Top 10 Climate Change Research Paper Topics

2. Economic Impact of Climate Change

3. Solutions for Reducing the Effect of Future Climate Conditions

4. Federal Government Climate Policy

5. Understanding of Climate Change

6. Carbon Emissions Impact of Climate Change

7. Evidence of Climate Change

8. Cause and Mitigation of Climate Change

9. Health Threats and Climate Change

10. Industrial Pollution and the Effects of Climate Change

Other Examples of Climate Change Research Topics & Questions

Climate Change Research Questions

Choosing the Right Climate Change Research Topic

Climate Change Research Topics FAQ

What's Next?

Get matched with top bootcamps

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Top 100 Climate Change Topics To Write About

Climate Change Topics for Short Essays

Climate Change Issues that Make for Good Topics

Interesting Climate Change Topics for Papers and Essays

Major Topics on Climate Change for Academic Writing

Climate Change Topics for Presentation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Climate Change Science

RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

Suggested Citation

Publication Info

What is skim?

Copyright Information

What is a prepublication?

What happens when I pre-order?

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

Where do I get eBook files?

Types of Publications

Six Tough Questions About Climate Change

Related Posts

Solar Geoengineering To Cool the Planet: Is It Worth the Risks?

Army Veteran and Environmental Advocate: A Sustainability Science Student’s Journey to Columbia

Sustainable Development Program Hosts Annual Alumni Career Conversations Panel

Researching Climate Change

Measurements of modern climate change

Using proxy data to understand climate change in the past

Using models to project future climate change

Studying the impacts of climate change

Climate change mitigation and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence and research gaps

What does this mean for the scientific community?

What is climate change?

Exploring the Topic

Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Climate Change FAQs

Related Research Guides

The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof

How do we know climate change is really happening?

What’s Up in Space and Astronomy

Social Channels

Roz Pidcock

Main image: Satellite image of Hurricane Katrina.

Original research

Caroline Beaudoin

Ruth Ndjaboue

Laura Cameron

Andrea C Tricco

Holly O Witteman

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and synthesis

Conclusions

Strengths and limitations of this study

Introduction

Research questions

Search strategy and selection criteria

Supplementary data

Coding and data mapping