Search results

Purpose: This chapter discusses the need for climate change risk mitigation and why it is not the responsibility of Central Banks to mitigate climate change risk.

Methodology: This chapter uses critical discourse analysis to explain why central banks should not have the responsibility for climate change risk mitigation.

Findings: This chapter argues that the responsibility for managing climate change risk should lie with elected officials, other groups and institutions but not Central Banks. Elected officials, or politicians, should be held responsible to deal with the consequence of climate change events. Also, international organizations and everybody can take responsibility for climate change while the Central Bank can provide assistance – but Central Banks should not lead the climate policy making or mitigation agenda.

Implication: The policy implication is that the responsibility for climate change risk mitigation should be shifted to politicians who are elected officials of the people. Also, international climate change organizations or groups can take responsibility for mitigating the climate change risk of member countries. Finally, citizens in a country or region should have equal responsibility for climate change. Climate information should be provided to every citizen to help them prepare for future climatic conditions.

Originality: This chapter propagates the idea that Central Banks should take a lead role in dealing with the problems of climate change. This chapter is the first chapter to contest a Central Bank-led climate change risk mitigation agenda.

Climate change is emerging as an important issue increasing uncertainty in the business circle, and financial institutions through their inaction seem to be unmoved by climate change risk despite the potential for climate change events to affect the financial institutions and the financial system. In this chapter, the effect of climate change on financial institutions and the financial system are highlighted and discussed.

Climate change adaptation strategies are critical for long-term road infrastructure development (RID) because it is expected to put more land and transportation infrastructure at risk from stronger winds, more intense storms, and rising sea levels. Deformation and subsidence could occur if concrete pavements crumbled and asphalt roads softened due to higher temperatures, and changes in the frequency and intensity of precipitation could have far-reaching consequences for the smooth operation of transportation networks. The developed world is primarily responsible for the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, while less developed countries are insignificant. The African Union sees climate change as a major threat to the continent’s economic development and is working with member states and key organizations to address it. It is critical for developing countries to establish frameworks for detecting climate change risks, developing adaptation strategies, and implementing plans. The sustainable development plan (SRIP) is critical for protecting transportation networks from the effects of climate change. Sustainable development principles are critical for clarifying the proposed project’s relationships with the local and larger society, economy, ecosystems, and various institutions. The ability of a system or structure to recover from disruption while continuing to function and adapt to new circumstances is referred to as resilient infrastructure. Low-carbon infrastructure coexists with resilient infrastructure, and the pursuit of resilient infrastructure necessitates a reduction in the likelihood of failure, a lessening of the negative consequences when failures do occur, and a reduction in the time required to recover due to an increase in the facilities’ capacity to endure, adapt, and change. As part of the implementation process, RID experts must consider how climate change will impact transportation infrastructure. Risk assessment is a systematic method of looking for things that could go wrong, determining how bad they could be, and determining how likely they are to happen. Adaptable designs must include multiple measures to prevent system breakdowns. Climate change’s effects on road infrastructure, as well as rising sea levels, continue to jeopardize low-lying transportation infrastructure. Implementing SRIP necessitates the development of a climate change response mechanism.

Agriculture is a sector highly dependent on climate, and thus it will experience multiple impacts from climate change. In contrast, agriculture is also one of the main contributors of climate change, emitting greenhouse gases, mainly related to land use, fertiliser application and livestock production. Higher temperature and atmospheric CO₂ concentration, changes in precipitation patterns and more frequent extreme weather events are expected to have a negative impact on crop productivity, water and soil resources. Coordinated mitigation and adaptation practices have to be a worldwide priority in order to maintain productivity levels and food production.

This chapter examines the perceived socio-cultural impacts of relocation to Fiji through the lens of target communities in Kiribati. Findings based on the perceptions of Kiribati communities reveal that relocation is the last ‘adaptation resort’ to escape and offset individual losses caused by climate change. It is viewed as an option that will compromise their socio-cultural practices and values in the long term. This study indicates that attention should not be focused only on factors that drive human relocation but should also prioritise justifications of those who choose not to relocate. This approach will better serve community expectations for in-country climate change adaptation and help shape future strategies and/or policies on climate change-driven relocation. Finally, policies and adaptation initiatives should be holistically framed; integrating values that are important to grassroots level such as socio-cultural values; and spiritual and mobility concerns for informed decision-making at all levels.

This chapter reviews factors responsible for climate change, impacts of the change on animal health, zoonotic diseases, and their linkage with One-Health program.

This chapter is based on the available literature related to climate change and its effect on animal health and production from different points. The causes and change forcers of climate change, direct and indirect effects of the change on animal health management, host–pathogen–vector interaction, and zoonotic diseases are included. Inter-linkage between climate change and One-Health program are also assessed.

Beside natural causes of climatic change, greenhouse gases are increasing due to human activities, causing global climate changes which have direct and indirect animal health and production performance impacts. The direct impacts are increased ambient temperature, floods, and droughts, while the indirect are reduced availability of water and food. The change and effect also promote diseases spread, increase survival and availability of the pathogen and its intermediate vector host, responsible for distribution and prevalence of tremendous zoonotic, infectious, and vector-borne diseases. The adverse effect on the biodiversity, distribution of animals and micro flora, genetic makeup of microbials which may lead to emerging and re-emerging disease and their outbreaks make the strong linkage between climate change and One-Health.

Global climate change is receiving increasing international attention where international organizations are increasing their focus on tackling the health impacts. Thus, there is a need for parallel mitigation of climate change and animal diseases in a global form.

Most research on climate change is limited to environmental protection, however this chapter provides a nexus between climate change, animal health, livestock production, and the One-Health program for better livelihood.

This paper describes the different ways in which people in the highlands of Papua New Guinea are talking about climate change. It demonstrates that people locate themselves in this process of change in terms of food production and exchange, and that some of the changes being witnessed are also related to the impacts of a growing cash economy on social relations.

This ethnography involved 12 months fieldwork including participant observation and interviews.

This is a qualitative study that recognises the perspective of local people for understanding culturally mediated experiences of climate change. However, data regarding rainfall and temperatures over time would be a useful addition for thinking about the extent to which the climate has in fact changed in recent years.

The implications of this paper are that the predictions made in 1990 about increases in production as a result of climate change are apparently coming true, with benefits for some food and coffee producers. But that there are complex social processes occurring at the same time as climate change that mean people’s ability to adapt is dependent on other social conditions. Maintaining ecologically sustainable methods of production and local cultural practices may enable more resilience to the impacts of climate change.

The experiences of people living in the Eastern Highlands and the ways in which people use the discourse of climate change are yet to be acknowledged in policy circles or socio-cultural anthropology literature. This paper presents a partial account of how people in Papua New Guinea are experiencing and talking about change.

Community perception of climate change is a factor in increasing local awareness of climate disaster risk. This encourages more disaster risk reduction actions by the communities themselves, and thus, provides a driver for sustainable community disaster risk management (DRM) initiatives. Using these hypotheses, this chapter assesses whether the communities’ climate change perceptions, awareness of climate hazardous risk, and subsequent actions on DRR enable local DRM capacity to reduce the increasing climate disaster risk. The study conducts household surveys with an original questionnaire in four communities in Cartago City, Costa Rica.

How do we understand political polarization around the issue of climate change in the United States? Using a mixed-methods approach, this paper unpacks the components of the debate over climate science and policy between 2015 and 2017 to understand the sources of divisiveness that have come to characterize climate politics in the United States. Data in our analysis include the content of Congressional hearings and open-ended, semi-structured interviews with the most influential climate policy actors at the federal level. We find high levels of polarization around two specific components of this debate: the type of policy instrument and the role of the federal government in regulating carbon dioxide emissions. This paper concludes by exploring how patterns of polarization preceding the 2016 election help us to understand the expected political debate over federal climate policy in the years to come.