English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Globalmitigation efforts remain insufficient to limit the global temperature increase towell below 2 °C.While a growing academic literature analyzes this problem, perceptions of which obstacles inhibit goal attainment andwhich responsesmight bemost effective seem to differ widely. Thismakes prioritization and agreement on theway forward difficult. To informprioritization in global climate policy and research agendas, we present quantitative data on how917 experts from the IPCC and the UNFCCCperceive the importance of different obstacles and response options for achieving 2 °C.On average, respondents consider opposition from special interest groups themost important obstacle and technological R&D themost important response. Our survey alsofinds that themajority of experts perceives awide range of issues as important, supporting an agenda that is inclusive in terms of coverage. Average importance ratings differ between experts from theGlobalNorth and South, suggesting that balanced representation in global fora and regionally differentiated agendas are important. In particular, opposition from special interest groups is a top priority among experts from NorthAmerica, Europe andOceania. Investigating the drivers of individual importance ratings, we find little difference between experts from the IPCC and theUNFCCC,while expert’s perceptions correlate with their academic training and their national scientific, regulatory, andfinancial contexts. The academic literature describes a plethora of obstacles and corresponding response options associated with climate change mitigation [1–8]. The literature explains why emission reductions do not meet the temperature target of the Paris Agreement despite the urgency to act [9, 10], but there is no consensus over which obstacles and responses aremost important [1, 11]. Given capacity constraints in political and academic systems [12, 13], it would seem valuable to prioritize obstacles and responses to allocate scarce resources in international policy (e.g. the UNFCCC) and research (e.g. the IPCC)most effectively. To empirically inform such prioritization, we conducted a survey among experts from the IPCC and UNFCCC asking them to rate the importance of a wide range of obstacles and responses to achieving 2 °C. Because individual preferences are the basis for group preferences [14], an issue should likely be a priority for international policy and research agendas if it is perceived as highly important by the policy and research communities. We analyze first whether experts perceive certain obstacles and responses as significantly more or less important than the average rating. In a second step, we investigate drivers behind importance ratings.We find differences in perceptions by experts from different regional backgrounds and discuss potential reasons underlying these variations.

What is important for achieving 2 °C? UNFCCC and IPCC expert perceptions on obstacles and response options for climate change mitigation