The potential contribution of disruptive low-carbon innovations to 1.5 °C climate mitigation

This paper investigates the potential for consumer-facing innovations to contribute emission reductions for limiting warming to 1.5 °C. First, we show that global integrated assessment models which characterise transformation pathways consistent with 1.5 °C mitigation are limited in their ability to analyse the emergence of novelty in energy end-use. Second, we introduce concepts of disruptive innovation which can be usefully applied to the challenge of 1.5 °C mitigation. Disruptive low-carbon innovations offer novel value propositions to consumers and can transform markets for energy-related goods and services while reducing emissions. Third, we identify 99 potentially disruptive low-carbon innovations relating to mobility, food, buildings and cities, and energy supply and distribution. Examples at the fringes of current markets include car clubs, mobility-as-a-service, prefabricated high-efficiency retrofits, internet of things, and urban farming. Each of these offers an alternative to mainstream consumer practices. Fourth, we assess the potential emission reductions from subsets of these disruptive low-carbon innovations using two methods: a survey eliciting experts’ perceptions and a quantitative scaling-up of evidence from early-adopting niches to matched segments of the UK population. We conclude that disruptive low-carbon innovations which appeal to consumers can help efforts to limit warming to 1.5 °C

Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance

Climate engineering (geoengineering) is rising up the global policy agenda, partly because international divisions pose deep challenges to collective climate mitigation. However, geoengineering is similarly subject to clashing interests, knowledge‐traditions and geopolitics. Modelling and technical assessments of geoengineering are facilitated by assumptions of a single global planner (or some as yet unspecified rational governance), but the practicality of international governance remains mostly speculative. Using evidence gathered from state delegates, climate activists and modellers, we reveal three underlying and clashing ‘geofutures’: an idealised understanding of governable geoengineering that abstracts from technical and political realities; a situated understanding of geoengineering emphasising power hierarchies in world order; and a pragmatist precautionary understanding emerging in spaces of negotiation such as UN Environment Assembly (UNEA). Set in the wider historical context of climate politics, the failure to agree even to a study of geoengineering at UNEA indicates underlying obstacles to global rules and institutions for geoengineering posed by divergent interests and underlying epistemic and political differences. Technology assessments should recognise that geoengineering will not be exempt from international fractures; that deployment of geoengineering through imposition is a serious risk; and that contestations over geofutures pertain, not only to climate policy, but also the future of planetary order

Coal and Climate Change

This overview adopts a critical social science perspective to examine the state of play and potential futures for coal in the context of climate change. It introduces key trends in coal consumption, production and trade, before appraising the relevant literature. Finding surprisingly little literature directly focussed on coal and climate change compared with related fields, it appraises existing work and highlights key areas for future work. In addition to established bodies of work on the situated politics of coal and the political economy of coal, new work calling for demand side policies to be supplemented with supply side policies highlights the increasing importance of how normative contestations drive debates over coal, suggesting that future work needs to engage not only much more directly with climate change as an issue, but particularly with the place of coal in a just transition. Because of coal’s mammoth contribution to climate change and the complex political economy which drives its production and consumption, it is likely that coal will remain at the centre of difficult questions about the relationship between climate action and development for some time

The relationship of genotype to cognitive outcome in galactosaemia

AIMS—To evaluate the cognitive outcome of a cohort of children with galactosaemia in relation to genotype.
METHODS—The cohort was drawn from children notified to the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit galactosaemia study which ran from 1988 to 1990. Cognitive outcome was assessed using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. Parents completed a questionnaire detailing educational status, and the attending paediatrician returned a questionnaire regarding age at diagnosis and biochemical outcome over the previous two years.
RESULTS—A total of 45 children were genotyped: 30 were homoallelic for the Q188R mutation, the remainder being heteroallelic for Q188R with K285N (n = 4), L195P (n = 4), or other mutations (n = 7). Psychometric evaluation was available in 34 cases: mean full scale IQ was 79, verbal quotient 79, and performance quotient 82. Genotype was not related to galactose-1-phosphate (Gal-1-P) concentrations. However, children homoallelic for the Q188R mutation had significantly lower IQ scores than those who were heteroallelic (73.6 v 94.8). This difference was independent of social and demographic influences and Gal-1-P concentrations over the previous two years.
CONCLUSIONS—In children with galactosaemia, cognitive outcome appears to relate to genotype rather than metabolic control, as reflected by Gal-1-P concentrations. The value of measuring Gal-1-P concentrations routinely once successfully established on a galactosaemia diet is questionable as concentrations do not appear to affect outcome. In the UK population, homozygosity for the Q188R mutation is invariably associated with a poor outcome, and there is evidence that variability in neurocognitive outcome is at least part dependent on allelic heterogeneity.