Climate change, sustainability and science education

The world and its peoples are facing multiple, complex challenges and we cannot continue as we are (Moss, 2010). Earth‘s “natural capital” - nature‘s ability to provide essential ecosystem services to stabilize world climate systems, maintain water quality, support secure food production, supply energy needs, moderate environmental impacts, and ensure social harmony and equity – is seriously compromised (Gough, 2005; Hawkins, Lovins & Lovins, 1999). To further summarize, current rates of resource consumption by the global human population are unsustainable (Kitzes, Peller, Goldfinger & Wackernagel, 2007) for human and non-human species, and for future generations. Further, continuing growth in world population and global political commitment to growth economics compounds these demands. Despite growing recognition of the serious consequences for people and planet, little consideration is given, within most nations, to the social and environmental issues that economic growth brings. For example, Australia is recognised as one of the developed countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Yet, to date, responses (such as carbon pricing) have been small-scale, fragmented, and their worth disputed, even ridiculed. This is at a time referred to as ‘the critical decade’ (Hughes & McMichael, 2011) when the world’s peoples must make strong choices if we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change.

The Citizen’s Round Table process : canvassing public opinion on energy technologies to mitigate climate change

This study draws on communication accommodation theory, social identity theory and cognitive dissonance theory to drive a ‘Citizen’s Round Table’ process that engages community audiences on energy technologies and strategies that potentially mitigate climate change. The study examines the effectiveness of the process in determining the strategies that engage people in discussion. The process is designed to canvas participants’ perspectives and potential reactions to the array of renewable and non-renewable energy sources, in particular, underground storage of CO2. Ninety-five people (12 groups) participated in the process. Questionnaires were administered three times to identify changes in attitudes over time, and analysis of video, audio-transcripts and observer notes enabled an evaluation of level of engagement and communication among participants. The key findings of this study indicate that the public can be meaningfully engaged in discussion on the politically sensitive issue of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) and other low emission technologies. The round table process was critical to participants’ engagement and led to attitude change towards some methods of energy production. This study identifies a process that can be used successfully to explore community attitudes on politically-sensitive topics and encourages an examination of attitudes and potential attitude change.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

Managing climate change ‘by the numbers’ in a UK energy company

This paper examines how ideas and practices of accounting come together in turning the abstract concept of climate change into a new non-financial performance measure in a large energy company in the UK. It develops the notion of ‘governmental management’ to explain how the firm’s carbon dioxide emissions were transformed into a new organisational object that could be made quantifiable, measureable and ultimately manageable because of the modern power of accounting in tying disciplinary subjectivities and objectivities together whilst operating simultaneously at the level of individual and the organisation. Examining these interrelations highlights the constitutive nature of accounting in creating not just new categories for accounting’s attention, but in turn new organisational knowledge and knowledge experts in the making up accounting for climate change. Significantly, it appears these new knowledge experts are no longer accountants: which may help explain accounting’s evolution into evermore spheres of influence as we increasingly choose to manage our world ‘by the numbers’.

Climate-ready crops: Intellectual property, agriculture, and climate change

In The Climate Change Review, Ross Garnaut emphasised that ‘Climate change and climate change mitigation will bring about major structural change in the agriculture, forestry and other land use sectors’. He provides this overview of the effects of climate change on food demand and supply: ‘Domestic food production in many developing countries will be at immediate risk of reductions in agricultural productivity due to crop failure, livestock loss, severe weather events and new patterns of pests and diseases.’ He observes that ‘Changes to local climate and water availability will be key determinants of where agricultural production occurs and what is produced.’ Gert Würtenberger has commented that modern plant breeding is particularly concerned with addressing larger issues about nutrition, food security and climate change: ‘Modern plant breeding has an increasing importance with regard to the continuously growing demand for plants for nutritional and feeding purposes as well as with regard to renewal energy sources and the challenges caused by climate changes.’ Moreover, he notes that there is a wide array of scientific and technological means of breeding new plant varieties: ‘Apart from classical breeding, technologies have an important role in the development of plants that satisfy the various requirements that industrial and agricultural challenges expect to be fulfilled.’ He comments: ‘Plant variety rights, as well as patents which protect such results, are of increasingly high importance to the breeders and enterprises involved in plant development programmes.’ There has been larger interest in the intersections between sustainable agriculture, environmental protection and food security. The debate over agricultural intellectual property is a polarised one, particularly between plant breeders, agricultural biotechnology companies and a range of environmentalist groups. Susan Sell comments that there are complex intellectual property battles surrounding agriculture: 'Seeds are at the centre of a complex political dynamic between stakeholders. Access to seeds concerns the balance between private rights and public obligations, private ownership and the public domain, and commercial versus humanitarian objectives.' Part I of this chapter considers debates in respect of plant breeders’ rights, food security and climate change in relation to the UPOV Convention 1991. Part II explores efforts by agricultural biotechnology companies to patent climate-ready crops. Part III considers the report of the Special Rapporteur for Food, Olivier De Schutter. It looks at a variety of options to encourage access to plant varieties with climate adaptive or mitigating properties.

Intellectual property and biofuels: The energy crisis, food security, and climate change

In light of larger public policy debates over intellectual property and climate change, this article considers patent practice, law, and policy in respect of biofuels. This debate has significant implications for public policy discussions in respect of energy independence, food security, and climate change. The first section of the paper provides a network analysis of patents in respect of biofuels across the three generations. It provides empirical research in respect of patent subject matter, ownership, and strategy in respect of biofuels. The second section provides a case study of significant patent litigation over biofuels. There is an examination of the biofuels patent litigation between the Danish company Novozymes, and Danisco and DuPont. The third section examines flexibilities in respect of patent law and clean technologies in the context of the case study of biofuels. In particular, it explores the debate over substantive doctrinal matters in respect of biofuels – such as patentable subject matter, technology transfer, patent pools, compulsory licensing, and disclosure requirements. The conclusion explores the relevance of the debate over patent law and biofuels to the larger public policy discussions over energy independence, food security, and climate change.

Key opportunities for the future of roads to contribute to Australia's climate change response

Road agencies face growing pressure to respond to a range of issues associated with climate change and the reliance on fossil fuels. A key part of this response will be to reduce the dependency on fossil fuel based energy (and the associated greenhouse gas emissions) of transport, both vehicles and infrastructure. This paper presents findings of investigations into three key areas of innovative technologies and processes, namely the inclusion of onsite renewable energy generation technologies as part of road and transport infrastructure, the potential for automated motorways to reduce traffic fuel consumption (referred to as 'Smart Roads'), and the reduction of energy demand from route and signal lighting. The paper then concludes with the recommendation for the engineering profession to embrace sustainability performance assessment and rating tools as the basis for enhancing and communicating the contribution to Australia's response to climate change. Such tools provide a rigorous structure that can standardise approaches to key issues across entire sectors and provide clarity on the evidence required to demonstrate leading performance. The paper has been developed with funding and support provided by Australia's Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre (SBEnrc), working with partners including Main Roads Western Australia, NSW Roads and Maritime Services, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, John Holland Group, the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia, Roads Australia, and the CRC for Low Carbon Living.

Comparative study on green building supportive policies of pacific-rim countries most vulnerable to climate change

- Problem Climate change is affecting the world in numerous ways such as increased temperatures, sea level rise, and increased droughts and floods. Governments worldwide, especially in the most vulnerable countries, are urged to seek better solutions for sustainable development. The construction industry and buildings have enormous impacts on humans and the environment, meaning green building must be one of the solutions. Government involvement is widely considered as one of the essential and most effective ways to promote green building and drive the construction market towards sustainability. This paper will review green building policy of the Pacific-Rim countries that are most vulnerable to climate change according to the recent Standard and Poor’s ranking, including: Cambodia, Vietnam, Fiji, Philippines, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. Methodology: This paper will review policy related publications including journal and conference papers, portal websites of governments, legislation documents and reports of international organisations. It will focus on the policies and governmental instruments that support the adoption of green building practices. - Findings All six governments have launched climate change adaptation policies, showing a great concern regarding the damages caused by the phenomenon. All countries except Papua New Guinea have promulgated energy efficiency policy and programs which indirectly promote the adoption of green building practices. The comparison study shows that Philippines and Indonesia motivate the adoption of renewable energy generation, energy efficiency and green building through either financial or advocacy instruments, while other four countries tend to implement regulatory tools to mandate energy conservation. Through comparison, Cambodia and Vietnam – the two countries providing vision to develop green building - can learn from Philippines and Indonesia’s policy and instruments. - Research limitations Language differences between the countries and limit of formal sources may pose difficulties in searching for information. While much English language literature exists, sources from Cambodia, Philippines and Indonesia are less accessible. - Takeaway for practice As the paper provides more understanding about the supportive policy of those countries, it will introduce more opportunities for green property developers to invest in construction markets of those Pacific-Rim countries. - Originality There is little research reviewing green building supportive policies of developing and less-wealthy countries that are forecasted to be most vulnerable and most impacted by climate change. The originality of this paper lies in its investigation on how those countries intend to respond to this phenomenon and whether and to what extent they support the green building market by using policy tools.

The role of law in responding to climate change : emerging regulatory, liability and market approaches

Climate change presents as the archetypal environmental problem with short-term economic self-interest operating to the detriment of the long-term sustainability of our society. The scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change strongly assert that the stabilisation of emissions in the atmosphere, to avoid the adverse impacts of climate change, requires significant and rapid reductions in ‘business as usual’ global greenhouse gas emissions. The sheer magnitude of emissions reductions required, within this urgent timeframe, will necessitate an unprecedented level of international, multi-national and intra-national cooperation and will challenge conventional approaches to the creation and implementation of international and domestic legal regimes. To meet this challenge, existing international, national and local legal systems must harmoniously implement a strong international climate change regime through a portfolio of traditional and innovative legal mechanisms that swiftly transform current behavioural practices in emitting greenhouse gases. These include the imposition of strict duties to reduce emissions through the establishment of strong command and control regulation (the regulatory approach); mechanisms for the creation and distribution of liabilities for greenhouse gas emissions and climaterelated harm (the liability approach) and the use of innovative regulatory tools in the form of the carbon trading scheme (the market approach). The legal relations between these various regulatory, liability and market approaches must be managed to achieve a consistent, compatible and optimally effective legal regime to respond to the threat of climate change. The purpose of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the emerging legal rules and frameworks, both international and Australian, required for the effective regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change in the context of the urgent and deep emissions reductions required to minimise the adverse impacts of climate change. In doing so, this thesis will examine critically the existing and potential role of law in effectively responding to climate change and will provide recommendations on the necessary reforms to achieve a more effective legal response to this global phenomenon in the future.

Corporate climate change-related governance practices and related disclosures : evidence from Australia

This paper investigates the climate change-related corporate governance disclosure practices of five major Australian energy-intensive companies over a 16-year period. In doing so, a content analysis instrument is developed to identify disclosures made in relation to various policies and procedures the organisations have in place for addressing the issues associated with climate change. This instrument is applied to the respective companies' annual reports and sustainability reports. An increasing trend is found in companies' climate change-related corporate governance disclosures over time; however, in many instances the disclosures provide limited insights into the climate change-related risks and opportunities confronting the sample companies.

Climate change and IMO technical and operational measures for reduction of emissions of greenhouse gas from ships

According to a study conducted by the International Maritime organisation (IMO) shipping sector is responsible for 3.3% of the global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol calls upon states to pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of GHG from marine bunker fuels working through the IMO. In 2011, 14 years after the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO has adopted mandatory energy efficiency measures for international shipping which can be treated as the first ever mandatory global GHG reduction instrument for an international industry. The MEPC approved an amendment of Annex VI of the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) to introduce a mandatory Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships. Considering the growth projections of human population and world trade the technical and operational measures may not be able to reduce the amount of GHG emissions from international shipping in a satisfactory level. Therefore, the IMO is considering to introduce market-based mechanisms that may serve two purposes including providing a fiscal incentive for the maritime industry to invest in more energy efficient manner and off-setting of growing ship emissions. Some leading developing countries already voiced their serious reservations on the newly adopted IMO regulations stating that by imposing the same obligation on all countries, irrespective of their economic status, this amendment has rejected the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (the CBDR Principle), which has always been the cornerstone of international climate change law discourses. They also claimed that negotiation for a market based mechanism should not be continued without a clear commitment from the developed counters for promotion of technical co-operation and transfer of technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships. Against this backdrop, this article explores the challenges for the developing counters in the implementation of already adopted technical and operational measures.

Climate Change and the Resilience of Commodity Food Production in Australia

The current view of Australian state and national governments about the effects of climate change on agriculture is that farmers – through the adoption of mitigation and adaptation strategies – will remain resilient, and agricultural production will continue to expand. The assumption is that neoliberalism will provide the best ‘free market’ options for climate change mitigation and adaptation in farming. In contrast, we argue that neoliberalism will increase the move towards productivis (‘high-tech’) agriculture – the very system that has caused major environmental damage to the Australian continent. High-tech farming is highly dependent upon access to water and fossil fuels, both of which would appear to be the main limits to production in future decades. Productivist agriculture is a system highly reliant upon fertilizers and fuels that are derived from the petrochemical industry, and are currently increasing in cost as the price of oil increases.

Examining how projections about the future of society are related to present-day climate change action

Global climate change will affect all domains of person-environment relations. Tackling climate change will require social change that can be motivated by people’s imaginings of the future of their society where such social change has occurred. We use the “collective futures” framework to examine whether beliefs about the future of society are related to present-day intentions to take climate change action. Participants from two Brazilian samples imagined their society in 2050 where climate change was mitigated and then rated how this future society would differ from Brazilian society today in terms of societal-level dysfunction and development and personal-level traits and values. To the extent that participants believed preventing climate change would result in societal development and more competence traits, they were more willing to engage in environmental citizenship activities. Individual differences in future time perspective also impacted environmental citizenship intention. Societal development and consideration of future consequences seem to be distinct routes by which future thinking influence climate change action.