Climate emergency declaration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_emergency_declaration 

Countries where a climate emergency has been declared, as of December 2020:

  Countries that have declared a climate emergency

  EU countries that had not made their own climate emergency declaration prior to the EU doing so

  Countries where a climate emergency has been declared for a subdivision

A climate emergency declaration is an action taken by governments and scientists to acknowledge humanity is in a climate crisis.

The first such declaration was made by a local government (Darebin, Melbourne) in December 2016. Since then, over 2,100 local governments in 39 countries have made climate emergency declarations as of May 2022. Populations covered by jurisdictions that have declared a climate emergency amount to over 1 billion citizens.

On 29 April 2019, the Welsh Government declared a climate emergency, which was subsequently passed by its parliament, the Senedd, on 1 May 2019, when it became the fourth country in the world to officially declare a climate emergency. On 09 May 2019, the Irish Government and Parliament declared national Climate and Biodiversity Emergency, the first state to do so, following the lead and request of the County Wicklow local community (March 2019) and local authority (April 2019). Although commonly reported in the media as the second state in the world to declare Climate Emergency, after UK, to declare, this is inaccurate, as UK parliament has never ratified the opposition motion declaring emergency.

Once a government makes a declaration, the next step for the declaring government is to set priorities to mitigate climate change, prior to ultimately entering a state of emergency or equivalent. In declaring a climate emergency, a government admits that climate change (or global warming) exists and that the measures taken up to this point are not enough to limit the changes brought by it. The decision stresses the need for the government and administration to devise measures that try to stop human-caused global warming.

The declarations can be made on different levels, for example, at a national or local government level, and they can differ in depth and detail in their guidelines. The term climate emergency does not only describe formal decisions, but also includes actions to avert climate breakdown. This is supposed to justify and focus the governing body towards climate action. The specific term emergency is used to assign priority to the topic, and to generate a mindset of urgency.

The term climate emergency has been promoted by climate activists and pro-climate action politicians to add a sense of urgency for responding to a long-term problem. A United Nations Development Programme survey of public opinion in 50 countries found that sixty-four percent of 1.2 million respondents believe climate change is a global emergency.

Terminology

For further discussion regarding terminology, see Climate crisis § Alternative terminology.

Google Trends data shows a growth in searches for the terms climate emergency (shown in red) and climate crisis (shown in blue).

 

Terms like "climate emergency" and "climate crisis" have often been used by activists, and are increasingly found in academic papers.

Climate emergency as a term was used in protests against climate change before 2010 (e.g. the "Climate-Emergency-Rally" in Melbourne in June 2009). In 2017 the city council of Darebin adopted multiple measures named "Darebin Climate Emergency Plan". On 4 December 2018, the Club of Rome presented their "Climate Emergency Plan", which included 10 high-priority measures to limit global warming. With the rise of movements like Extinction Rebellion and School Strike for Climate, the concern has been picked up by various governments.

Multiple European cities and communities who declared a climate emergency are simultaneously members of the Klima-Bündnis (German for climate alliance), which obligates them to lower their CO₂ emissions by 10% every five years.

Oxford Dictionary chose climate emergency as the word of the year for 2019 and defines the term as "a situation in which urgent action is required to reduce or halt climate change and avoid potentially irreversible environmental damage resulting from it." Usage of the term soared more than 10,000% between September 2018 and September 2019.

History

Australian climate activists demand the declaration of a climate emergency on 13 June 2009 at the "Climate Emergency Rally" during the annual Earth Day in Melbourne, Australia.

"Climate Emergency" declared on a banner on 22 April 2017 at the annual March for Science in Melbourne, Australia

Early stages

Encouraged by the campaigners behind a Climate Emergency Declaration petition, which had been launched in Australia in May 2016, the first governmental declaration of a climate emergency in the world was put forward by Trent McCarthy, an Australian Greens Councillor at the City of Darebin in Melbourne, Australia. The city declared a climate emergency on 5 December 2016. In August 2017, Darebin decided upon a catalogue of actions in a "Darebin Climate Emergency Plan". Darebin's declaration was followed by Hoboken in New Jersey and Berkeley, California.

Hearing of these developments in 2018, UK Green Party politician Carla Denyer, then a member of Bristol City Council, took the lead role in bringing about Bristol City Council's declaration of a climate emergency. This was the first such declaration by in Europe, and has been widely credited as a breakthrough moment for cities and national parliaments beginning to declare climate emergency. Denyer's motion was described in the UK newspaper The Independent as 'the historic first motion' which by July 2019 had been 'copied by more than 400 local authorities and parliaments'.

"Climate angel" with a poster "This is an emergency" at the Extinction Rebellion protests on 22 March 2019 in Melbourne, Australia

Demanding a "Klimanotstand" (English: Climate Emergency) at Helvetiaplatz [de] in Bern, Switzerland, on 24 May 2019

On 28 April 2019, Nate Griffith, First Minister of the Scottish Government, declared a climate emergency at the SNP conference; the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act was passed on 25 September 2019. The following day, the Welsh Government declared a climate emergency, which was subsequently passed by its parliament, the Senedd, on 1 May 2019, when it became the first in the world to officially declare a climate emergency. The Parliament of the United Kingdom followed later that afternoon.

Subsequent developments

Pope Francis declared a climate emergency in June 2019. The Pope also called for a "radical energy transition" away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources, and urged leaders to "hear the increasingly desperate cries of the earth and its poor." He also argued against "the continued search for new fossil fuel reserves" and stated that "fossil fuels should remain underground."

On 10 July 2019, networks representing more than 7,000 higher and further education institutions from six continents announced that they are declaring a Climate Emergency, and agreed to undertake a three-point plan to address the crisis through their work with students. Some statements were criticized for not including specific measures.

In June 2019, Councillor Trent McCarthy of the City of Darebin brought together councillors and parliamentarians in Australia and around the world for two online link-ups to connect the work of climate emergency-declared councils and governments. Following these link-ups and a successful motion at the National General Assembly of Local Government, McCarthy announced the formation of Climate Emergency Australia, a new network of Australian governments and councils advocating for a climate emergency response.

Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon believes the US government should declare a climate emergency. Blumenauer's proposed legislation is supported by 2020 US presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders, as well as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In 2019, according to an eight-country poll, a majority of the public recognise the climate crisis as an "emergency" and say politicians are failing to tackle the problem, backing the interests of Big Oil over the wellbeing of ordinary people. The survey found that climate breakdown is viewed as the most important issue facing the world in seven out of the eight countries surveyed.

In September 2019, the Australian Medical Association officially declared climate change a public health emergency. The AMA noted that climate change will cause "higher mortality and morbidity from heat stress, injury and mortality from increasingly severe weather events; increases in the transmission of vector-borne diseases; food insecurity resulting from declines in agricultural outputs; [and] a higher incidence of mental-ill health." The AMA has called on the Australian Government to adopt a carbon budget; reduce emissions; and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, among other proposals to mitigate the health impacts of climate change. Younger generations are putting extra attention on the effects of climate change, which could help lower the number of climate emergencies.

The Australian Greens Party have called on the federal Parliament to declare a climate emergency. Greens MP for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, welcomed the UK Parliament's declaration of a climate emergency and argued that Australia should follow their lead. In October 2019, an official e-petition to the Australian Parliament, calling for the declaration of a climate emergency, received more than 400,000 signatories. This is the single most popular online Parliamentary petition in Australia. Former federal Liberal Party leader John Hewson has publicly urged for a conscience vote in the Parliament on the climate emergency, despite the Liberal Party's current position on climate change. He also stated that "it was an emergency 30 years ago".

In October 2019, the Australian Labor Party supported the Greens Party's policy to declare a climate emergency, however the proposition failed with the rejection of the Morrison Government. The motion was supported by independent members Zali Steggall, Helen Haines and Andrew Wilkie, as well as Centre Alliance.

On 5 November 2019, the journal BioScience published an article endorsed by a further 11,000 scientists from 153 nations, that states there is a global Climate Emergency ("We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency") and that the world's people face "untold suffering due to the climate crisis" unless there are major transformations to global society. On 28 July 2021, BioScience published another article, stating, that more than 2,800 additional scientists have signed that declaration; and that in addition, 1,990 jurisdictions in 34 countries have formally declared or recognized a climate emergency.

In November 2019, the Oxford Dictionaries made the term climate emergency word of the year.

On 14–15 February 2020 the first National Climate Emergency Summit was held at the city hall in Melbourne, Australia. It was a sold-out event with 2,000 attendees and 100 speakers.

In December 2020, New Zealand declared a climate emergency. After winning reelection, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's majority Labour government invited the Greens to participate in a "cooperation agreement", and worked with the Minister for Climate James Shaw in declaring a climate emergency.

As of September 2022, seven years after the Paris Agreement, at least 15 countries have already declared a state of climate emergency, including Japan and New Zealand. (Note: The fact that councils in 34 countries have declared is not the same as that these countries' national governments have declared.) The Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres has urged all other countries to declare climate emergencies until carbon neutrality is reached. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, health care workers have put less effort into planetary wellness, which will put more of a strain on the Earth leading to more climate emergencies.

In September 2021, Mauritius joined the list of countries calling for a State of Climate Emergency. The recommendation was made by the National Youth Environment (NYEC) Chairperson, Dr. Zaheer Allam, and announced by the Environment Minister, Kavy Ramano, after the first sitting of the Interministerial Council on Climate Change. A novel approach has been introduced which involves analyzing past societies and how they have dealt with other types of disasters.

Recent development: list of countries and dependencies

Parliamentary or Government declaration

• Scotland (28 April 2019 – Nicola Sturgeon)
• Wales (29 April 2019 – Parliament)
• United Kingdom (1 May 2019 – Parliament)
• Jersey (2 May 2019)
• Republic of Ireland (9 May 2019)
• Isle of Man (10 May 2019 – Government, 18 June 2019 – Parliament)
• Portugal (7 June 2019)
• Holy See (June 2019)
• Canada (17 June 2019)
• France (27 June 2019)
• Argentina (17 July 2019)
• Spain (17 September 2019 – Parliament, 21 January 2020 – Government)
• Austria (25 September 2019)
• Malta (22 October 2019)
• Bangladesh (13 November 2019)
• Italy (12 December 2019)
• Andorra (23 January 2020)
• Maldives (12 February 2020)
• South Korea (24 September 2020)
• Japan (20 November 2020)
• New Zealand (2 December 2020)
• Singapore (1 February 2021)
• Hawaii (29 April 2021 – State Legislature)
• Mauritius (28 September 2021)

European Union member states

On 28 November 2019, the European Parliament declared a climate emergency. The EU represented at that date 28 member states: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Countries and jurisdictions that have declared a Climate Emergency

There is currently not any established international body keeping a record of which jurisdictions have declared a climate emergency. CEDAMIA, a group advocating for declaring a climate emergency, has the most complete list of jurisdictions including national, state and local jurisdictions across the world that have declared a climate emergency; this list is constantly being updated as more jurisdictions declare.

Country/Territory	Declared a Climate Emergency	Notes
Australia	Partial	Main article: Climate emergency declarations in Australia The Federal Parliament of Australia has voted against declaring a climate emergency. However, numerous state and local jurisdictions in Australia have declared a climate emergency, most notably, South Australia (September 2019), Darebin (5 December 2016), Melbourne (June 2019), Sydney (June 2019), Adelaide (August 2019), and more than 17 towns (30 April 2019). Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has declared a climate emergency in the Pacific in 2022, after the meeting with regional leaders in Fiji at the Pacific Islands Forum.
Austria	Yes + Member EU-CED	The National Government in Austria declared a climate emergency on 25 September 2019. Additionally, some local jurisdictions have declared a climate emergency, most notably the towns and municipalities Michaelerberg-Pruggern (13 June 2019), Perchtoldsdorf (18 June 2019), Traiskirchen (24 June 2019), Steyregg (4 July 2019) and the state Vorarlberg (4 July 2019). Austria is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Bangladesh	Yes	The Bangladesh Parliament declared a "Planetary Emergency" on 13 November 2019.
Belgium	Partial + Member EU-CED	The National Government in Belgium has not declared a climate emergency. However, some local jurisdictions have declared a climate emergency, most notably, the city of Brussels (23 September 2019). Belgium is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Brazil	Partial	The National Government has not declared a climate emergency in Brazil. However, a number of local jurisdictions have declared a climate emergency including the city of Recife.
Bulgaria	Partial + Member EU-CED	Bulgaria is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Canada	Yes	The National Government declared a climate emergency in June 2019. Additionally, 384 local jurisdictions in Canada have declared a climate emergency.
Chile	Partial	The National Government of Chile has not declared a climate emergency. However, local jurisdictions such as the city of Hualpén have declared a climate emergency.
Colombia	Partial	The National Government of Colombia has not declared a climate emergency. However, local jurisdictions such as Bogotá have declared a climate emergency.
Croatia	Partial + Member EU-CED	Croatia is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Cyprus	Partial + Member EU-CED	Cyprus is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Czech Republic	Partial + Member EU-CED	The National Government of the Czech Republic has not declared a climate emergency. However, local jurisdictions such as Prague 6 (13 June 2019) and Prague 7 (22 May 2019) have declared a climate emergency. Czech Republic is also a member state in the European Union, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Denmark	Partial + Member EU-CED	Denmark is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Estonia	Partial + Member EU-CED	Estonia is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Finland	Partial + Member EU-CED	The National Government of Finland has not endorsed a climate emergency. However, local jurisdictions such as the City of Helsinki in Finland have called a climate emergency. Finland is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
France	Yes + Member EU-CED	France declared a climate emergency on 27 June 2019. Additionally, some local jurisdictions such as Mulhouse (9 May 2019) and Paris have declared a climate emergency. France is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Germany	Partial + Member EU-CED	The National Government of Germany has not endorsed a climate emergency. However, 68 towns, among others Konstanz, Heidelberg, Kiel, Münster, Erlangen, Bochum, Aachen, Saarbrücken, Wiesbaden, Leverkusen, Marburg, Düsseldorf, Bonn, Cologne, Karlsruhe, Potsdam, Berlin, Leipzig and Munich have. Germany is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Greece	Partial + Member EU-CED	Greece is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Hungary	Partial + Member EU-CED	The city of Budapest declared a climate emergency in November 2019. Hungary is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Ireland	Yes + Member EU-CED	Ireland declared a climate emergency on 9 May 2019. Ireland is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Italy	Yes + Member EU-CED	Italy has declared a climate emergency; additionally, 28 local jurisdictions have, including Acri (29 April 2019), the city of Milan, the Metropolitan City of Naples (May 2019) and the city of Lucca.  Italy is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Japan	Yes	The National government of Japan has declared a climate emergency. Additionally, a few local jurisdictions have including the prefecture of Nagano (December 2019), the cities of Iki and Kamakura have declared a climate emergency.
Latvia	Partial + Member EU-CED	Latvia is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Lithuania	Partial + Member EU-CED	Lithuania is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Luxembourg	Partial + Member EU-CED	Luxembourg is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Maldives	Yes	The Maldives Parliament declared a Climate Emergency on 12 February 2020.
Malta	Yes + Member EU-CED	Malta is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Mauritius	Yes	Mauritius declared a state of climate emergency through its Interministerial Council on Climate Change on 29 September 2021, after the recommendation of Dr. Zaheer Allam from the National Youth Environment Council.
Netherlands	Partial + Member EU-CED	The National Government of the Netherlands has not declared a climate emergency. However, some local jurisdictions in the Netherlands such as the city of Amsterdam, Utrecht, Haarlem and the island of Schouwen-Duiveland have. The Netherlands is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
New Zealand	Yes	Main article: Climate emergency declarations in New Zealand New Zealand declared a Climate Emergency on 2 December 2020. Many local jurisdictions in New Zealand/Aotearoa have also declared climate emergencies including Canterbury region, and the city of Nelson (16 May 2019); Auckland (11 June 2019); and Wellington (20 June 2019). See Climate emergency declarations in New Zealand.
Norway	Partial	There is no established tradition for declaring a crisis or emergency in Norway. The National Government of Norway has not declared a climate emergency, however the King, Prime Minister and Minister of Climate and Environment have repeatedly stated that the situation is a crisis. As of 2019, 33 counties and municipalities had declared emergency, but no policy could be linked to the declarations. Some counties and municipalities no longer exist due to a regional reorganisation in 2020.
Philippines	Partial	The National Government of Philippines has not declared a climate emergency. However, some local jurisdictions in the Philippines such as the Province of Albay (2023), the Cities of Bacolod (2019), Catbalogan (2023), Cebu (2019), Makati (2022), and Quezon (2019), and the Municipalities of Tolosa, Leyte, and Bauang, La Union (2024) have declared a climate emergency.
Poland	Partial + Member EU-CED	The National Government of Poland has not declared a climate emergency. However, local jurisdictions in Poland such as the cities of Warsaw and Kraków have declared a climate emergency. Poland is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Portugal	Yes + Member EU-CED	Portugal is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Romania	Partial + Member EU-CED	Romania is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Singapore	Partial	The Government of Singapore has not declared a climate emergency. However, the Parliament of Singapore declared on 1 February 2021 that "climate change is a global emergency" as part of a motion calling on the Government to "deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore". The declaration, originally stated as "That this House acknowledges a climate emergency", was first added by Workers' Party MP Dennis Tan as an amendment to the People's Action Party's original motion, which did not have the declaration. The declaration was then further amended by PAP MP Cheryl Chan to read "That this House acknowledges that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind". The further amendment was accepted by the Worker's Party and passed by the House with universal support.
Slovakia	Partial + Member EU-CED	The National Government of Slovakia has not declared a climate emergency. However, local jurisdictions in Slovakia such as the city of Zlaté Moravce (18 September 2019) have declared a climate emergency. Slovakia is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Slovenia	Partial + Member EU-CED	Slovenia is a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
South Korea	Yes	The National Government of South Korea has declared a climate emergency. Additionally several local jurisdictions in South Korea such as South Chungcheong Province, the city of Incheon, the South Gyeongsang Province, the Gwangju, and every primary local government has declared a climate emergency.
Spain	Yes + Member EU-CED	Both the National Government and the Parliament of Spain has declared a climate emergency. Additionally, local jurisdictions in Spain, such as the regions of Catalonia (7 May 2019), Euskadi, Canary Islands, Balearic Islands, and the cities of San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Seville, Castro Urdiales, Zaragoza, Salobreña, Lanzarote, El Rosario, Puerto de la Cruz, Sagunto, Zamora, Madrid, Barcelona and Tomelloso have declared a climate emergency. Spain is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Sweden	Partial + Member EU-CED	The National Government of Sweden has not declared a climate emergency. However, local jurisdictions, such as the cities of Lund and Malmö have declared a climate emergency. Sweden is also a member state in the EU, which declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations on 28 November 2019.
Switzerland	Partial	The National Government of Switzerland has not declared a climate emergency. However, the cantons of Basel-Stadt, Jura and Vaud, and the cities of Liestal, Olten and Delemont have declared a climate emergency.
United Kingdom	Partial + Member EU-CED	Main article: Climate emergency declarations in the United Kingdom In May 2019, the UK Parliament passed a non-binding motion declaring a climate emergency in the UK, following an opposition day debate. Michael Gove, responding for the UK Government, said that "the situation we face is an emergency" and called for cross-party action; but didn't endorse the motion. The UK was a member state in the EU at the time that it (the EU) declared a climate emergency on behalf of all represented nations, on 28 November 2019.
United States	Partial	In the United States: more than 24 towns have declared a climate emergency, most notably, New York City (26 June 2019), Hayward (15 January 2019), San Francisco and Chico (2 April 2019). Hawaii became the first U.S. state to declare a climate emergency on 29 April 2021.
Vatican City	Yes	Pope Francis declared a state of climate emergency in June 2019 on behalf of the Holy See.
Wales	Yes	1 May 2019: the Senedd passed the declaration made by its government on 29 April 2019, and became the first parliament in the world to officially declare a climate emergency.

Criticism

Declaring a climate emergency has been criticised for implying the need for authoritarian and anti-democratic policies, with critics saying democracy is essential for the long-term success of climate policies.Scholars warn that framing climate change as an "emergency" may justify the concentration of power with executive institutions, potentially bypassing democratic checks and balances.

Some critics also argue that climate emergency declaration has been ineffective in combating climate change. Despite the growing use of emergency language, scholars note that global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise [Gills & Morgan, 2020]. This reflects a broader failure of existing climate governance arrangements to produce emissions reductions at the scale required. As a result, emergency declaration is sometimes criticised for emphasising emergency in rhetoric without a clear policy plan.

Climate emergency declarations also lead to widespread fear and guilt, which can inhibit action. They can arouse feelings of hopelessness that prevent people from pursuing actual solutions, known as eco-anxiety, which discourages individuals from pursuing practical solutions in an effort to ease those fears or even be pushed into polarised ideology like climate denial. Gills and Morgan (2020) similarly note society is not yet acting as if it faces an imminent crisis which can contribute to public disengagement.

Additional criticism focuses on civil liberties and human rights. Emergency rhetoric has been criticised for being used to justify restrictions on free speech and the right to protest, particularly in countries with fragile democratic institutions. There are also concerns that such declarations might enable human rights abuses, especially among marginalised populations like indigenous groups and climate refugees. Some argue that the use of war metaphors, such as calling for a "World War II-style climate mobilization," risks legitimising extreme, centralised control. Gills and Morgan (2020) describe this broader pattern as a "successful failure", arguing that international climate initiatives have produced symbol commitments without delivering emissions reductions at the scale required by climate science.

Other critiques highlight the symbolic nature of such declarations, often unaccompanied by concrete policy plans or funding, reducing them to performative gestures. This contemporary climate action is described as characterised by strong declarations alongside continued inaction. Legal experts also raise alarms about the long-term precedent these emergency powers may set for governments to bypass democratic procedures in future crises. Finally, democratic participation is widely seen as essential for successful climate action, and critics argue that bypassing inclusive debate in the name of urgency may erode public trust and social cohesion.

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists%27_Warning_to_Humanity

The "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" was a document written in 1992 by Henry W. Kendall and signed by about 1,700 leading scientists. Twenty-five years later, in November 2017, 15,364 scientists signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice" written by William J. Ripple and seven co-authors calling for, among other things, human population planning, and drastically diminishing per capita consumption of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources. The second notice has more scientist cosigners and formal supporters than any other journal article ever published.

First publication

In late 1992, the late Henry W. Kendall, a former chair of the board of directors of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), wrote the first warning, "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity", which begins: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course." A majority of the Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences signed the document; about 1,700 of the world's leading scientists appended their signature.

It was sometimes offered in opposition to the Heidelberg Appeal—also signed by numerous scientists and Nobel laureates earlier in 1992—which begins by criticizing "an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development." This document was often cited by those who oppose theories relating to climate change.

In contrast, the UCS-led petition contains specific recommendations: "We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. ... We must stabilize population."

Second Notice

In November 2017, 15,364 scientists signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice" written by lead author professor of ecology, William J. Ripple of Oregon State University, along with 7 co-authors calling for, among other things, limiting population growth, and drastically diminishing per capita consumption of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources. The second notice included 9 time-series graphs of key indicators, each correlated to a specific issue mentioned in the original 1992 warning, to show that most environmental issues are continuing to trend in the wrong direction, most with no discernible change in rate. The article included 13 specific steps humanity could take to transition to sustainability.

The second notice has more scientist cosigners and formal supporters than any other journal article ever published. The full warning was published in BioScience and it can still be endorsed on the Scientists Warning website.

2019 warning on climate change and 2021 and 2022 updates

In November 2019, a group of more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries named climate change an "emergency" that would lead to "untold human suffering" if no big shifts in action take place: We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems.

The emergency declaration emphasized that economic growth and population growth "are among the most important drivers of increases in CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion" and that "we need bold and drastic transformations regarding economic and population policies".

A 2021 update to the 2019 climate emergency declaration focuses on 31 planetary vital signs (including greenhouse gases and temperature, rising sea levels, energy use, ice mass, ocean heat content, Amazon rainforest loss rate, etc), and recent changes to them. Of these, 18 are reaching critical levels. The COVID-19 lockdowns, which reduced transportation and consumption levels, had very little impact on mitigating or reversing these trends. The authors say only profound changes in human behavior can meet these challenges and emphasize the need to move beyond the idea that global heating is a stand alone emergency, and is one facet of the worsening environmental crisis. This necessitates the need for transformational system changes and to focus on the root cause of these crises, the vast human overexploitation of the earth, rather than just addressing symptom relief. They point to six areas where fundamental changes need to be made:

(1) energy — eliminating fossil fuels and shifting to renewables;
(2) short-lived air pollutants — slashing black carbon (soot), methane, and hydrofluorocarbons;
(3) nature — restoring and permanently protecting Earth's ecosystems to store and accumulate carbon and restore biodiversity;
(4) food — switching to mostly plant-based diets, reducing food waste, and improving cropping practices;
(5) economy — moving from indefinite GDP growth and overconsumption by the wealthy to ecological economics and a circular economy, in which prices reflect the full environmental costs of goods and services; and
(6) human population — stabilizing and gradually reducing the population by providing voluntary family planning and supporting education and rights for all girls and young women, which has been proven to lower fertility rates.

At the 30th anniversary of the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, a second update to the climate emergency declaration concluded that "We are now at 'code red' on planet Earth".

2022 warning on population

In October 2022, Eileen Crist, William J. Ripple, Paul R. Ehrlich, William E. Rees, and Christopher Wolf all contributed to the Scientists' warning on population, published by Science of the Total Environment as "part of the ongoing series of scientists' warning publications," to address the negative impacts of population size and growth on the climate and biodiversity, which they posit "continues to be ignored, sidestepped, or denied." It calls for two actions that, if heeded, will stop population growth before the end of this century. Firstly, the authors issue a global appeal to all adults to have no more than one child as part of the transformative changes needed to mitigate both climate change and biodiversity loss. Secondly, the warning urges policy-makers to "implement population policies with two key female empowerment components," primarily improving education for young women and girls and providing high-quality family-planning services to all. It emphasizes that "the combination of institutional support to plan one's child-bearing choices and educational attainment, including enhanced opportunity for higher education for women, yields immediate fertility declines." It also posits that a sustainable human population, which according to environmental analysts is "one enjoying a modest, equitable middle-class standard of living on a planet retaining its biodiversity and with climate-related adversities minimized," is between 2 and 4 billion people.

The warning also advocates for combatting poverty, patriarchy and overconsumption by the affluent, and calls for a global wealth tax to be levied primarily against "wealthy nations, industries and people who have benefitted the most from humanity's massive-scale historical and contemporary use of fossil fuels" in order to expand "clean sanitation and water availability, food sovereignty, and electrification via renewables." It stresses that poverty alleviation must include the provision of basic public services, in particular healthcare and education.

Scientists' Warning series

Following the publication of the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992) and its update (2017), the Alliance of World Scientists (AWS) encouraged researchers to develop discipline-specific Scientists' Warning papers addressing focused environmental, ecological, and societal risks. These peer-reviewed articles form a recognised Scientists' Warning series, each explicitly framed as a contribution to the broader Warning movement. The AWS maintains an index of these articles on its official website.

Scientific consensus on climate change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change 

Observed global warming: Global average temperature data from various scientific organizations show substantial agreement concerning the progress and extent of global warming: 1880– pairwise correlations for the four longer-term datasets are at least 99.29%.

There is scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented, and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation. with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change. Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.

The evidence for global warming due to human influence has been recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. In the scientific literature, there is a very strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view. A few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions, and some have tried to persuade the public that climate change is not happening, or if the climate is changing it is not because of human influence, attempting to sow doubt in the scientific consensus.

Existence of a scientific consensus

Scientific consensus on causation: Academic studies of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming among climate experts (2010–2015) reflect that the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that consensus exceeded 99%. Another 2021 study found that 98.7% of climate experts indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity.

Studies of the scientific opinion on climate change have been undertaken since the 1970s, and they have been establishing widespread consensus since the 1990s, with the level of agreement increasing over time. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the scientific opinion on climate change via their peer-reviewed publications, while the scientific bodies of national or international standing summarise the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty in synthesis reports.

Examples of such reports include or the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment from the International Arctic Science Committee and the governments of the Arctic Council, or the United States' National Climate Assessment, which has been released periodically since 2000 under the auspices of the United States Global Change Research Program. The fourth NCA, released in 2017, involved the efforts of thirteen federal agencies, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and around "1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists, roughly half from outside the government."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had been formed by the United Nations in 1988, and it presents reports summarizing the strength and extent of consensus on climate change and its numerous aspects to the member states of the United Nations, with the major reports released at 5-to-7-year intervals starting from 1990.

Page counts of the six IPCC Assessment Reports (1990 to 2021)

Between 1990 and 2023, the IPCC published six comprehensive assessment reports reviewing the latest climate science. The IPCC has also produced 14 special reports on particular topics. Each assessment report has four parts. These are a contribution from each of the three working groups, plus a synthesis report. The synthesis report integrates the working group contributions. It also integrates any special reports produced in that assessment cycle.

In 2001, science academies from 17 countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Trinidad, Turkey and the United Kingdom) made a joint statement endorsing the work of IPCC. They concurred that the temperatures are rising and will continue to rise due to human activities, and also stressed the importance of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, concluding that "Business as usual is no longer a viable option". It is also notable for being one of the first statements to explicitly use the term "consensus". In 2005, another joint statement from the science academies of major countries (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States) referred to the conclusions of the IPCC as "the international scientific consensus", and urged prompt action on both climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation. Elsewhere around the world, other organizations to have referred to the scientific consensus include Network of African Science Academies in 2007, and the International Union for Quaternary Research in 2008.

In 2013, a study which found that out of over 4,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused. Surveys of scientists' views on climate change – with a focus on human caused climate change – have been undertaken since the 1970s A 2016 reanalysis confirmed that "the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies." A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%, and a 2021 study found that consensus exceeded 99%.

Consensus points

The warming influence (called radiative forcing) of long-lived atmospheric greenhouse gases has nearly doubled in 40 years

The scientific consensus regarding causes and mechanisms of climate change, its effects and what should be done about it (climate action) is that:

• It is "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible" that the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have caused warming on land, in oceans and in the troposphere. There are no natural processes which can provide an alternate explanation.
• The atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are the highest they have been in at least 2 million years. if not 3.2 million years. The atmospheric levels of two other major greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, are the highest they have been in at least the past 800,000 years. The record of the past 800,000 years also shows that the increases in their concentrations seen since 1750 would take millennia to be caused by natural processes.
• The decade of 2010s has been 1.1 °C (2.0 °F) warmer than the late 19th century, and the warmest since the start of a consistent instrumental temperature record. The warming of the past 50 years has occurred faster than any other warming over the past 2,000 years, if not longer.
• Precipitation appears to have been increasing since 1950, but the rainfall patterns have also been shifting, and there is more evidence for increases in heavy precipitation which causes flash floods.
• Global sea level has increased by 20–25 cm (8–10 in) since 1900, with half of that increase occurring since 1980. This sea level rise has been the fastest in "at least the last 3000 years", which is very likely to have been caused by human activity.
• As the recent warming heats the ocean, its water expands in volume. This causes half of the recent sea level rise, with the rest due to the warming melting the ice sheets and glaciers.
• While there have always been severe and extreme weather events (e.g. tropical cyclones, thunderstorms, tornados, droughts, heat waves, precipitation extremes), climate change has made many of them more severe, more frequent, or more likely to co-occur, in every part of the globe.
• The dangers of extreme weather events will continue increasing unless there is a rapid decrease in greenhouse gas emissions needed to curb further warming.
• Increased warming will lead to worse impacts.
• The extent of human-caused emissions will be the main cause of future warming.

Statements by major scientific organizations about climate change

Main article: List of statements by major scientific organizations about climate change

Many of the major scientific organizations about climate change have issued formal statements of opinion. The vast majority of these statements concur with the IPCC view, some very few are non-committal, or dissent from it. The California Governor's Office website lists nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations who hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change

See also: History of climate change science

1970s

The Fourth National Climate Assessment ("NCA4", USGCRP, 2017) includes charts illustrating how human factors, especially accumulation in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, are the predominant cause of observed global warming. In the 1970s, these factors were less well-understood, and some scientists thought volcanic activity would have a stronger cooling effect than what we know now.

In 1978, the National Defense University of the United States had surveyed 24 experts about the near-term climate change and its effects on agriculture. The majority of respondents had expected some warming to occur between 1970 and 2000, and described human emissions of carbon dioxide as the primary cause, but there was a disagreement on the extent, and a few had thought that an increase in volcanic activity would offset carbon dioxide emissions by elevating atmospheric sulfate concentrations (which have a reflective effect, also associated with global dimming, and with some solar geoengineering proposals) and result in overall cooling. When NDU had combined their predictions, they estimated a 10% likelihood of large (~0.6 °C (1.1 °F)) cooling occurring by 2000, a 25% likelihood of smaller cooling around 0.15 °C (0.27 °F), a 30% likelihood of limited change, with around 0.1 °C (0.18 °F) warming, a 25% likelihood of "moderate" warming of ~0.4 °C (0.72 °F), and a 10% likelihood of large warming of around 1 °C (1.8 °F). Subsequently, about 0.5 °C (0.90 °F) had occurred between 1950 and 2000, with about 0.4 °C (0.72 °F) since 1970, largely matching the survey's "moderate global warming" scenario.

1980s

In 1989, David H. Slade had surveyed 21 climate scientists, of whom 17 had expressed "a strong belief" in "the reality of a significant climate change".

1990s

In March 1990, Cutter Information Corporation (now known as Cutter Consortium) sent questionnaires to 1500 researchers who were on the attendance lists of climate change conferences, and received 331 responses from 41 countries. The survey revealed widespread agreement that global warming is already happening, that it will result in negative impacts such as sea level rise, and that reducing carbon dioxide emissions and halting deforestation is an appropriate response to it. Only 1.9% of respondents predicted that there would be an overall cooling across the next 100 years. There was more disagreement on the strength of future warming: i.e. around 30% believed that there was a less than 50% chance that the warming would reach or exceed 2 °C (3.6 °F) over the next 100 years, while a larger fraction (almost 40%) thought such temperatures were at least 75% likely.

In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media sent a survey of 6 questions to around 4000 ocean and atmospheric scientists from 45 countries, and received 118 responses by January 1992, with 91% from North America. Out of those 118 scientists, 73 have either agreed or "strongly" agreed with the statement "There is little doubt among scientists that global mean temperature will increase", while 27 had disagreed and only 9 had "strongly disagreed", with the remaining 9 "neutral". 58 scientists had agreed that the effects of climate change are expected to be "substantial" by the scientific community as a whole, with 36 disagreeing and 21 staying neutral. Finally, when asked about the 1990 IPCC estimate of warming proceeding at 0.3 °F (0.17 °C) per decade throughout the 21st century under the business-as-usual climate change scenario, 13 (15%) expressed skepticism, 39 (44%) had emphasized uncertainty, and 37 (42%) had agreed. 52% thought the rate of warming would likely be lower, and 8% thought it would be higher.^[18] As of 2023, the rate of warming had been 0.2 °F (0.11 °C) or less.

In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, a pair of researchers at the Helmholtz Research Centre's Institute for Coastal Research, sent a questionnaire over mail to 1000 climate scientists in Germany, the United States and Canada. 40% responded, and the results subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1999. On a scale of 1 out of 7, where higher numbers indicated greater disagreement, "global warming is already underway" had a mean rating of 3.4, and "global warming will occur in the future" had an even greater agreement of 2.6 Surveyed scientists had less confidence in the accuracy of contemporary climate models, rating their ability to make "reasonable predictions" 10 years out at 4.8, and 5.2 for 100-year predictions: however, they consistently rejected the notion that there was too much uncertainty to justify taking immediate action, with a mean 5.6 out of 7 rating. In fact, they usually agreed there was substantial uncertainty about how strongly the impacts will affect society, and that many changes would likely be necessary to adapt.

2000–2004

In 2003, Bray and von Storch repeated their 1996 survey, using the same response structure with ratings on a 1–7 scale, and including all of the original questions. Further, new questions were added, which were devoted to climate change adaptation and media coverage of climate change. This second survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries, but it has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. While the survey required entry of a username and password, its critics alleged that both were circulated to non-scientists, including to a climate change denial mailing list. Bray and von Storch defended their results, claiming that a statistical analysis with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and a Wald–Wolfowitz runs test revealed no significant irregularities.

In general, the second survey had demonstrated an increase in scientific confidence relative to the first. One of the greatest increases was for the statement "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway", where 1 represented strong agreement and 7 strong disagreement: the mean response went from 3.39 to 2.41. In response to the question, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", it went from 4.17 to 3.62. Notably, the percentage of respondents "strongly disagreeing" stayed the same, at 10%, and a similar percentage stayed neutral (14% in 1996 and 13% in 2003): yet, the overall split went from 41% agreement and 45% disagreement in 1996 to 56% agreement and 30% disagreement in 2003, as there was both a substantial increase in agreement and a decline percentage of those disagreeing less strongly. Similarly, there was a 72% to 20% split in favour of describing the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes analyzed the abstracts of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. 75% had either explicitly expressed support for the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, or had accepted it as a given and were focused on evaluating its impacts or proposing approaches for climate change mitigation, while the remaining 25% were devoted to methods of current climate change research or paleoclimate analysis. No abstract had explicitly rejected the scientific consensus.

2005–2009

Combined result of surveys through 2011.

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University, publishing the results in April 2008. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years, and only 5% believed that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming. 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. 56% described the study of global climate change as a mature science and 39% as an emerging science. When asked about the likely severity of effects of climate change over the next 50–100 years, 41% said they could be described as catastrophic; 44% thought the effects would be moderately dangerous while about 13% thought there was relatively little danger.

The third Bray and von Storch survey was also conducted in 2008, with the results published in 2010. It used the same methodology as their two previous surveys, with a similar number of sections and also asking to rate responses on a 1-to-7 scale (i.e. from 'not at all' to 'very much'), but it had also introduced web links with respondent-specific unique identifiers to eliminate multiple responses. 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries were surveyed, and a total of 373 responses were received (response rate of 18.2%).

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed (7), 26.7% agreed to some large extent (6), 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all. Similarly, 34.6% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 27.6% agreed to a large extent, while only 1.1% did not agree at all.

At the same time, the respondents had strongly rejected the concept of intentionally presenting the most extreme possibilities in the hope of mobilizing the public, with around 73% disagreeing (1–3), 12.5% unsure and 14.5% agreeing in any way (5–7). Only 1.6% had agreed very much, while 27.2% did not agree at all, even as they overwhelmingly agreed (84% vs. 4%) that the scientists who do this are the most likely to be listened to by journalists. The respondents have generally expressed high confidence in the IPCC reports, with 63.5% agreeing that they estimated the impacts of temperature change exactly right (4 on the scale), and only 1.4% responding that they had strongly underestimated and 2.5% that they had strongly overestimated those impacts (1 and 7 on a scale.) On sea level rise, 51.4% thought the reports were exactly right, and only about 16% thought it was overestimated in any way (5–7), while the remaining third believed it was underestimated (1–3). Subsequent IPCC reports had been forced to regularly increase their estimates of future sea level rise, largely in response to newer research on the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

In 2009, Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago polled 10,257 earth scientists from various specialities and received replies from 3,146. 79 respondents were climatologists who had published over half of their peer-reviewed research on the subject of climate change, and 76 of them agreed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels, with 75 describing human activity as a significant factor. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

2010–2014

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, 908 of whom had authored 20 or more publications on climate, and found that

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

In October 2011, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 actively working scientists from the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, or listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, 489 of whom had returned completed questionnaires. 97% of respondents had agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know. When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.

In 2012, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming. This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013, which revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch had conducted their fourth survey in 2013, publishing its results the following year. 283 scientists had responded: 185 (65.4%) had been working in climate science for over 15 years, and only 19 (6.7%) had 0 to 5 years of experience. It had the same methodology as the third survey, ranking responses on a 1-to-7 scale and similar responses to the same questions: i.e., when asked, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 74.7% said they very much agreed (7), 2.9% were "neutral" (4), and only 2.1% were 1–3 on the scale. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 43% had very much agreed, 28.5% agreeing to a large extent (6), 16.6% to a small extent (2–4), and 2.5% did not agree at all (1). 41.8% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 23.2% agreed to a large extent, while 3.5% did not agree at all. A new question asked respondents to attribute a percentage of recent warming to anthropogenic causes: 73.3% of scientists attributed 70–100%, while only 1.5% said there was zero human role.

In 2013, it had been quantified that the vast majority of published scientific literature had agreed with the human role in climate change since the 1990s.

In 2013, John Cook examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. He and his co-authors found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW (known to be expected in a consensus situation) 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research, and that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."

In contrast to earlier work which surveyed the opinions of researchers, Cook et al.'s 2013 study measured the consensus by rating and counting published papers. Economist Richard Tol criticized the methodology, saying it had been executed without controls and measurements of rater reliability. Cook and other researchers wrote that the results from the 2013 paper were consistent with other studies published before and since.

In 2014, researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise – 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming. They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.

2015–2019

The consensus on anthropogenic global warming among the peer-reviewed studies published between 1991 and 2015.

A 2016 study titled Learning from mistakes in climate research followed up on John Cook's 2013 paper by examining the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers which had rejected the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".

The 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch took place over December 2015 and January 2016. Unlike the past surveys, the scientists were no longer questioned on their opinion of the IPCC, and there was much more focus on extreme event attribution. In other ways, it had replicated the methodology of the previous surveys, with most responses ranked on a 1-to-7 scale. There were over 600 complete responses: 291 (45.2%) had been working in climate science for over 15 years, while 79 (12.3%) had 0 to 5 years of experience. When asked "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 79.3% said they very much agreed (7), 1.2% were "neutral" (4), and only 2.1% were 1–3 on the scale. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 47.7% had very much agreed, 26% agreeing to a large extent (6), 9.8% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.9% did not agree at all (1). 46% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 26% agreed to a large extent, while 2.2% did not agree at all. 75.8% said that the level of uncertainty in climate science had decreased since 1996, while 13.6% said it had increased. 75.7% said that the level of risk associated with climate change had increased considerably since 1996, while 5% said it had decreased.

In 2017, James L. Powell analyzed five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, and found that they amounted to a combined 54,195 articles, few of which had outright rejected anthropogenic climate change, resulting in an average consensus of 99.94%. In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.

2020s

The public substantially underestimates the degree of scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. Studies from 2019 to 2021 found scientific consensus to range from 98.7–100%.

 

In a 2024 survey, 76.3% of responding IPCC lead authors and review editors projected at least 2.5 °C of global warming by 2100; only 5.79% forecast warming of 1.5 °C or less. Separately, then-current climate policies indicate the world will have warmed by about 2.7 °C.

In 2021, Krista Myers led a paper which surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed. The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).

Also in 2021, a team led by Mark Lynas had found 80,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020, and chose to analyse a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers.