Epilogue - Future challenges for the national climate change research strategy

Background: The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) have supported climate change and health-relevant research for decades. Through the years 2010 to 2020, annual NIH support for climate change and health research hovered around $10 million funded by 21 NIH components. The NIH Climate Change and Health Initiative, launched in 2021, is an NIH-wide effort to develop the first coordinated NIH plan for research on the impacts of climate change on human health. Methods: The Initiative created a core framework in 2021 that was informed by a month’s long planning and engagement process. Directors of seven Institutes and Centers at the NIH have joined together to create a strategic framework document that highlights the core focus areas of the work. The group released a Public Request for Information to gather input from community organizations and academic scientists and conducted a federal and international landscape assessment to map out organizations working in the space. Internally, NIH conducted a portfolio analysis of funded climate research from the past decade, engaged staff through workshops, and developed an internal data call for planned climate related programs. Results: The strategic framework will guide a community of practice comprising outstanding and committed scientists, trainees, and specialists. Key areas of interest outlined include: Health Effects Research, Health Equity, Intervention Research and Training and Capacity Building. The framework also identifies nine key areas of supporting science for climate change and health research. Conclusions: Climate change is impacting health and communities around the world but there remain many key research knowledge gaps. NIH’s role as a leading funder of biomedical and human health research can play an important role in coordinating research to better understand health impacts, health adaptation, and outcomes in communities impacted related to climate change. There is perhaps no greater opportunity for NIH to fulfill its mission than by providing global leadership in the response to the burgeoning climate change and health crisis. Key words: Climate change; public health; research

Researchers have documented that observations of climate change impacts reported by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities coincide with scientific measurements of such impacts. However, insights from Indigenous and Local Knowledge are not yet completely included in international climate change research and policy fora. In this article, we compare observations of climate change impacts detected by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities from around the world and collected through a literature review (n=198 case studies), with climate scientists' opinions on the relevance of such information for climate change research. Scientists' opinions were collected through a web survey among climate change researchers from universities and research centres in Spain (n=191). In the survey, we asked about the need to collect local level data regarding 68 different groups of indicators of climate change impacts to improve the current knowledge, and about the feasibility of using Indigenous and local knowledge in climate change studies. Results show consensus on the need to continue collecting local level data from all groups of indicators to get a better understanding of climate change impacts, particularly on impacts on the biological system. However, while scientists of our study considered that Indigenous and local knowledge could mostly contribute to detect climate change impacts on the biological and socioeconomic systems, the literature review shows that information on impacts on these systems is rarely collected; researchers instead have mostly documented the impacts on the climatic and physical systems reported by Indigenous and local knowledge.

By growing awareness for and interest in climate change, media coverage enlarges the window of opportunity by which research can engage individuals and collectives in climate actions. However, we question whether the climate change research that gets mediatized is fit for this challenge. From a survey of the 51,230 scientific articles published in 2020 on climate change, we show that the news media preferentially publicizes research outputs found in multidisciplinary journals and journals perceived as top-tier. An in-depth analysis of the content of the top-100 mediatized papers, in comparison to a random subset, reveals that news media showcases a narrow and limited facet of climate change knowledge (i.e., natural science and health). News media selectivity reduces climate change research to the role of a sentinel and whistleblower for the large-scale, observed, or end-of-century consequences of climate change for natural Earth system components. The social, economic, technological, and energy aspects of climate change are curtailed through mediatization, as well as local and short-term scales of processes and solutions. Reviewing the social psychological mechanisms that underlie behavioral change, we challenge the current criteria used to judge newsworthiness and argue that the consequent mediatization of climate change research fails to breed real society engagement in actions. A transformative agenda for the mediatization of climate change research implies aligning newsworthiness with news effectiveness, i.e., addressing the extent to which communication is effective in presenting research that is likely to produce behavioral change.

BackgroundThere are gaps in translating climate change research into public health action at the global level. Knowledge translation refers to the methods used to bridge the gap between knowledge and action. Given the significant impacts of climate change on health, it is essential to integrate climate research into health decision-making processes. This integration ensures that evidence effectively informs policies and practices at all levels, leading to more timely, equitable, and impactful public health responses.ObjectiveThis scoping review examines key approaches and identifies gaps in knowledge translation methods for integrating climate change research into public health decision-making.MethodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus using a predefined search string to identify studies on climate change and health published between January 1, 2003, and March 1, 2024, with no geographic restrictions. Retrieved articles were screened and data extracted using Covidence software. Thematic analysis was performed in ATLAS.TI employing Braun and Clark’s six-step method. The identified knowledge translation approaches were categorized according to the Cochrane Knowledge Translation Framework.FindingsOur findings highlight five primary knowledge translation approaches: (1) monitoring the coverage of climate change and health across media, scientific literature, and government responses; (2) engaging citizens of all ages in participatory activities to address local climate challenges and co-develop policy solutions; (3) integrating knowledge generation, synthesis, and dissemination for effective communication; (4) emphasizing advocacy and education to foster collaborations and gain support from decision-makers; and (5) leveraging health impact assessment tools to guide decision-making related to climate change and health. Nonetheless, we did not find any primary studies on climate change research and knowledge translation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs).ConclusionThere is a need for primary studies on the knowledge translation of climate change research, especially in relation to adaptation, into meaningful public health actions that can inform decision-making and contribute to building climate-resilient health systems in LMICs.

This study presents a comprehensive overview of the evolving landscape of tourism and climate change research over the past decade by leveraging bibliometric analysis and a dataset sourced from the Scopus Database. The study scrutinised over 3400 English language articles. The analysis reveals a remarkable surge in publications, signifying the growing recognition of climate change’s multifaceted impact on tourism. However, a noteworthy geographical disparity emerges, with many regions remaining underrepresented in the literature, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. This oversight is concerning, given the vulnerability of these regions to climate change and their burgeoning tourism industries. The study also highlights the pivotal role of influential scholars, funding organisations, and publication outlets in shaping the research landscape. The European Commission and the National Natural Science Foundation of China are major funders. At the same time, journals like Sustainability and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism serve as prominent platforms for disseminating research findings. The analysis uncovers thematic trends, including the growing focus on climate change modelling and its implications for destination planning. However, research gaps persist, notably in sports tourism and climate resilience within the tourism sector. In conclusion, this study offers valuable insights into the current state of tourism and climate change research, pinpointing areas that demand increased attention and inclusivity. It is a valuable resource for scholars, policymakers, and stakeholders working towards a sustainable and resilient future for the global tourism industry in the face of climate change.

This research note focuses on the current climate change research scenario and discusses primarily what is required in the present global climate change conditions. Most of the climate change research and models predict adverse future conditions that have to be faced by humanity, with less emphasis on mitigation measures. Moreover, research ends as reports on the shelves of scientists and researchers and as publications in journals. At this juncture the major focus should be on research that helps in reducing the impact rather than on analysing future scenarios of climate change using different models. The article raises several questions and suggestions regards climate change research and lays emphasis on what we really need from climate change researchers.

Climate change awareness is associated with enhanced adaptive capacity

The threats and opportunities faced by primary production industries from future climate changes can be adequately prepared for only with the guidance of model projections that can assist the development of robust policy and climate adaptation plans by governments and industries. We used continuous suitability models capable of reflecting incremental changes to project the suitability of locations across New Zealand for cultivating apple and kiwifruit in the mid- and late-century. These projections used future weather data from climate model simulations for two contrasting greenhouse gas (GHG) pathways: stringent GHG mitigation and unabated GHG emissions. To improve the suitability of the modelled temperature data, specifically for use with biologically driven, crop suitability models, we developed new bias-variance adjustments that preserved climate change signals within the data. Preliminary projections of land use across a range of alternative primary industries were obtained from a multinomial logit model incorporating continuous suitability scores as predictors. We refined the preliminary land-use projections by providing them as inputs into a simulation model of land use incorporating other drivers and constraints. This methodology provides a means for projecting future land use and the spatial footprints of primary industries, based on biological and econometric considerations, under different modelled climate change scenarios.

In the study of ecological and evolutionary responses to climate change, there has been a growing emphasis recently on complexity deriving from biological interactions [1-3]. Such complexity reflects the dynamics of interactions occurring among levels of organization and across scales of space and time. It therefore poses enormous challenges for the management of global environments and resources over the next century. Climate Change Responses is dedicated to publishing research that addresses this complexity and confronts these challenges to understanding biological responses to climate change. With the launch of this journal, we aim to emphasize the frontiers in climate change research, including, for instance, understanding interactions among individuals and species, bi-directional interactions between abiotic and biotic components of natural systems, and evolutionary capacities to respond to changing environments through adaptation and phenotypic plasticity. The probability that the observed changes in climate since the mid 20 century are not caused by human activity is now diminishingly small [4]. Human activity has therefore led to changes in several environmental variables, notably temperature, dissolved oceanic CO2 level, and rainfall patterns. In addition to their individual impact, environmental drivers interact with each other, thereby exacerbating their effects on biological systems. For example, concurrent increases in temperature and CO2 levels can interact to determine metabolism and gene expression profiles in marine invertebrates [5]. Similarly, together temperature and UV-B radiation can determine performance and life history traits in animals [6]. Quantifying climate change at the spatial level at which it is most relevant for ecological responses is, however, far from straightforward [7]. This is because climate change predictions are mostly made at a global scale over relatively long time periods. However, Helmuth et al. [7]

Quantitatively projecting the impact of future climate change on the socio-economy and exploring its internal mechanism are of great practical significance to adapt to climate change and prevent climate risks. Based on the economy-climate (C-D-C) model, this paper introduces a yield impact of climate change (YICC) model that can quantitatively project the climate change impact. The model is based on the YICC as its core concept and uses the impact ratio of climate change (IRCC) indicator to assess the response of the economic system to climate change over a long period of time. The YICC is defined as the difference between the economic output under changing climate condition and that under assumed invariant climate condition. The IRCC not only reflects the sensitivity of economic output to climate change but also reveals the mechanism of the nonlinear interaction between climate change and non-climatic factors on the socio-economic system. Using the main grain-producing areas in China as a case study, we use the data of the ensemble average of 5 GCMs in CMIP6 to project the possible impact of climate change on grain production in the next 15–30 years under three future scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP5-8.5). The results indicate that the long-term climate change in the future will have a restraining effect on production in North region and enhance production in South region. From 2021 to 2035, climate change will reduce production by 0.60–2.09% in North region, and increase production by 1.80–9.01% in South region under three future scenarios. From 2021 to 2050, compared with the climate change impact in 2021–2035, the negative impact of climate change on production in North region will weaken, and the positive impact on production in South region will enhance with the increase in emission concentration. Among them, climate change will reduce grain output in North region by 0.52–1.99%, and increase output in South region by 1.35–9.56% under the three future scenarios. The combination of economic results and climate change research is expected to provide scientific support for further revealing the economic mechanism of climate change impacts.

For many years investigators have been aware of potential links between climate change and outdoor air quality.1 Far fewer studies have focused on climate change and indoor air quality, but a new report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concludes that the relationship between the two warrants further attention and action.2 “There’s not much research at this interface, and hard evidence is needed,” says John Spengler, an atmospheric scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health, who chaired the committee that authored the report. “This report identifies indoor air quality as a priority that deserves an important place in climate change research and policy.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asked the IOM to independently investigate the issue. “Most people spend the majority of their time indoors, so it makes sense that people will experience climate change from a housing perspective,” says Patricia Butterfield, dean of the Washington State University College of Nursing, who reviewed the report. The IOM committee describes potential changes to residential and commercial buildings resulting from efforts either to mitigate or adapt to climate change. Climate change mitigation plans seeking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions often tout the goal of reducing the amount of energy needed to maintain a comfortable indoor environment. That’s because coal combustion for electricity production is a primary source of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide.3 But steps such as weatherizing buildings to make them more energy efficient could create new indoor problems or worsen existing conditions, according to the report. For example, caulking and sealing leaks in buildings may alter airflow and concentrate indoor pollutants such as tobacco smoke, radon, and chemical emissions from building materials.4 And trapped moisture can spur mold and bacterial growth.5 Weatherproofing must be undertaken with care to avoid unintended problems with indoor air quality. Severe weather presents another opportunity for indoor air hazards. For instance, Butterfield says, families may face an increased likelihood of flooded basements or mold in attics related to predicted increases in extreme weather. And an increase in cases of carbon monoxide poisoning after hurricanes has been traced to the improper use of portable gasoline-powered generators, which emit high levels of carbon monoxide.6 When generators are used properly with good ventilation, they are not a problem. But when used improperly close to or inside homes, people end up in emergency rooms or even dead. “It’s a good example of the interplay we will experience as we adapt to climate change,” Spengler says. He adds that new weatherizing materials and techniques may be commercialized faster than their health implications can be assessed. “We will invent all sorts of things as we adapt to mitigate climate change,” he explains. The report authors write that an “upfront investment” is needed to consider the potential consequences of housing-related adaptation actions in order to avoid problems and prevent the costs of medical care and lost productivity of building occupants. This investment might entail research that combines data from government agencies to understand how climate change affects environmental health, putting programs in place to certify products as helpful or nonhazardous, and training workers to properly install proven products. Models to ensure the safety of building materials already exist in the U.S. Green Building Council and Labs21 programs.7 The report urges government agencies to cooperate in investigating the problem and work toward solutions. Several agencies already collect extensive data sets, such as residential energy consumption surveys conducted by the Department of Energy8 and the National Hospital Discharge Survey compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.9 Combining such data could help to answer questions about how climate change affects indoor health. Identifying complex public health issues that connect global climate change and indoor air environments can lead to sound policy decisions that could save lives, Butterfield says. “The IOM report makes a connection between global climate change and weather extremes and the behavior of people as they try to adapt,” she says. “Unfortunately, many people will experience climate change as a natural disaster like a flood or hurricane. We need to connect global climate change with the indoor air environment to give thoughtful guidance to people.”

"The Sky Is Falling," Government Is Not Responding, What Can Scientists Do?

Left unmitigated, climate change poses a catastrophic risk to human health, demanding an urgent and concerted response from every country. The 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change and The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change have been initiated to map out the impacts of climate change and the necessary policy responses. To meet these challenges, Tsinghua University, partnering with the University College London and 17 Chinese and international institutions, has prepared the Chinese Lancet Countdown report, which has a national focus and builds on the work of the global Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change. Drawing on international methodologies and frameworks, this report aims to deepen the understanding of the links between public health and climate change at the national level and track them with 23 indicators. This work is part of the Lancet's Countdown broader efforts to develop regional expertise on this topic, and coincides with the launch of the Lancet Countdown Regional Centre in Asia, based at Tsinghua University. The data and results of this report are presented at the provincial level, where possible, to facilitate targeted response strategies for local decision-makers. Based on the data and findings of the 2020 Chinese Lancet Countdown report, five recommendations are proposed to key stakeholders in health and climate change in China: (1) Enhance inter-departmental cooperation. Climate change is a challenge that demands an integrated response from all sectors, urgently requiring substantial inter-departmental cooperation among health, environment, energy, economic, financial, and education authorities. (2) Strengthen health emergency preparedness. Knowledge and findings on current and future climate-related health threats still lack the required attention and should be fully integrated into the emergency preparedness and response system. (3) Support research and raise awareness. Additional financial support should be allocated to health and climate change research in China to enhance health system adaptation, mitigation measures, and their health benefits. At the same time, media and academia should be fully motivated to raise the public and politicians' awareness of this topic. (4) Increase climate change mitigation. Speeding up the phasing out of coal is necessary to be consistent with China's pledge to be carbon neutral by 2060 and to continue to reduce air pollution. Fossil fuel subsidies must also be phased out. (5) Ensure the recovery from COVID-19 to protect health now and in the future. China's efforts to recover from COVID-19 will shape public health for years to come. Climate change should be a priority in these interventions.

The response of the global climate system to atmospheric CO2 concentration increase in time is scrutinized employing the Brazilian Earth System Model Ocean–Atmosphere version 2.3 (BESM-OA2.3). Through the achievement of over 2000 yr of coupled model integrations in ensemble mode, it is shown that the model simulates the signal of recent changes of global climate trends, depicting a steady atmospheric and oceanic temperature increase and corresponding marine ice retreat. The model simulations encompass the time period from 1960 to 2105, following the phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) protocol. Notwithstanding the accurate reproduction of large-scale ocean–atmosphere coupled phenomena, like the ENSO phenomena over the equatorial Pacific and the interhemispheric gradient mode over the tropical Atlantic, the BESM-OA2.3 coupled model shows systematic errors on sea surface temperature and precipitation that resemble those of other global coupled climate models. Yet, the simulations demonstrate the model’s potential to contribute to the international efforts on global climate change research, sparking interest in global climate change research within the Brazilian climate modeling community, constituting a building block of the Brazilian Framework for Global Climate Change Research.

1. Following the establishment of the Rovaniemi initiative to develop an Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, it was proposed that an Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) should be developed. AMAP will be responsible for the preparation of reports on the State of the Arctic Environment; for developing and approving the protocol and coverage assessment; deciding on monitoring requirements; and for advising on the research and other resources needed to undertake investigations. 2. It is proposed that AMAP should, as its first priority, monitor the levels and assess the effects of anthropogenic pollutants in all the component parts of the Arctic environment including the effects of contaminants on human health. To monitor the levels of anthropogenic pollutants, high quality measurements will be of fundamental importance. The measured components will include radionuclides; heavy metals; persistent organic pollutants; various atmospheric gases and aerosols; and various biological and physical parameters. Practical models will be used to complete the knowledge gained from measurements; to perform process studies; to understand transport mechanisms and pathways; to allocate contributions to different regions (transboundary transport), to define measurement strategies still further; and to indicate trends. 3. Two of the most significant threats to the Arctic environment may come from climate change, induced by global warming, and the effects of stratospheric ozone depletion and increased UVb radiation on life forms (including humans) in the Arctic. National monitoring of climate parameters should be co-ordinated within the framework of AMAP when a mutual interest is recognized and not otherwise organized internationally. Programmes to discover the causes and effects of climate change and to understand the processes of climate change are to a large extent being developed by other international groups and in other fora. AMAP should be familiar with these programmes and develop links with them to encourage and facilitate an Arctic focus in climate programs. Measurements aimed at assessing climate change (e. g. extent and variability of sea-ice and glaciers; permafrost and soil-temperature measurements; and changing ecosystems) will provide important inputs to the AMAP dataset. In turn, AMAP data will be relevant to climate change programmes in the Arctic. 4. Campaigns to identify and quantify the extent of possible stratospheric ozone depletion will provide AMAP with useful data. In turn, AMAP will contribute data on the effects. 5. AMAP has noted that other impacts on the Arctic environment arise not only from the long-range transport of pollutants but from local activities, which include mining, hydrocarbon exploitation, and changing settlement patterns and changing lifestyles. 6. One of the first AMAP tasks will be to co-ordinate and assess national programmes and to develop these programmes in an international framework so as to meet the basic needs of the Rovaniemi process. Existing work by relevant international programmes will be utilised in such assessments. A further stage will be the development and extension of such measurement networks. 7. It is proposed that AMAP's organisational structure should include an Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Task Force (AMATF) and a permanent secretariat. The Task Force will consist of the eight Arctic nations plus observers from other nations with significant Arctic research programmes. A liaison mechanism will be developed for a wide range of international organizations involved in monitoring and regulatory activities, assessments and research (e. g. ICES; OSPARCOM; UNECE; World Climate Programmeof WMO/ICSU; WMO; the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme). It will also be necessary to liaise with organizations specialising in the Arctic such as the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and the Arctic Ocean Sciences Board (AOSB) and with international organizations representing indigenous peoples. 8. The establishment of a central database that can serve the Task Force and participating scientists is recommended. In the first phase there is a need for a directory/ reference database and a system for the interchange of data. A system for preparing and presenting key information for the status reports has also to be established. 9. Coordination of research on the Arctic environment and processes should be encouraged between participating countries. Research projects should be linked to monitoring in such a way that essential processes important for understanding and explaining observations have high priority. Close co-operation between the IASC and AMAP should be established.