IPCC AR6报告关于气候恢复力发展的解读

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2022.080

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

文中对IPCC第六次评估报告（AR6）第二工作组（WGII）报告关于气候恢复力发展（CRD）相关内容进行解读。CRD的概念最初由IPCC第五次评估报告（AR5）引入,AR6在AR5的基础上进行了更新,正式将CRD定义为实施温室气体减缓和适应措施的过程,以支持所有人的可持续发展。新的定义更加强调了公平性原则,并且在评估内容中对不同社会选择进行了细致的描述,增强了CRD的可操作性,也强调了其紧迫性与不可逆性。报告主要从适应的角度阐述了如何在人类系统和自然系统中促成CRD的实现：城市化趋势为CRD同时带来了机遇与挑战,城市化在加剧气候变化风险的同时也会通过带动周边乡村地区的适应行动来推动CRD;保护生态系统多样性有助于保护生态系统也有助于提高其自身的恢复力,但在较高温升水平下部分适应行动将会无法实施。AR6 WGII报告评估显示,比起AR5报告的时间节点（2014年）的评估结论,当前全球CRD行动更紧迫,实行有效的、公平的应对气候变化措施迫在眉睫。

关键词: 气候变化, 气候恢复力发展（CRD）, 适应, 可持续发展

Abstract:

This work is an interpretation of Climate Resilient Development (CRD) in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group II (WGII) of IPCC. The definition of CRD was introduced in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of IPCC, the definition was updated in AR6 that CRD was defined as a process of implementing greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation options to support sustainable development for all. The new definition reinforces the principle of fairness, and makes a detailed description of different social choices in the evaluation content, which enhances the operability of CRD, and emphasizes its urgency and irreversibility. The report expounds how to promote the realization of CRD in human and natural systems consider of adaptation. The urbanization trend brings opportunities and challenges to CRD at the same time. While urbanization intensifies the risk of climate change, it will also promote the CRD by driving the adaptation action of surrounding rural areas. Protecting ecosystem diversity helps to protect the ecosystem and improve its own resilience, but some adaptation actions will not be implemented at higher temperature rise level. The AR6 WGII assessment shows that, the current global CRD action is more urgent compared with the AR5 (2014), and we need to implement effective and equitable measures to deal with climate change.

Key words: Climate change, Climate Resilient Development (CRD), Adaptation, Sustainable development

张百超, 庞博, 秦云, 韩振宇, 陆波. IPCC AR6报告关于气候恢复力发展的解读[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2022, 18(4): 460-467.

ZHANG Bai-Chao, PANG Bo, QIN Yun, HAN Zhen-Yu, LU Bo. Interpretation of Climate Resilient Development in IPCC AR6 WGII[J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(4): 460-467.

图/表 2

图1 IPCC AR5（上图）和AR6（下图）WGII报告的决策者摘要中关于气候恢复力发展（CRD）路径的示意图

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the Climate Resilience Development (CRD) pathway form IPCC WGII-SPM of AR5 (upper) and AR6 (lower)

图2 AR6 WGII评估的与CRD相关的4种指数在全球7个区域的分布注：数据来自AR6 WGII报告第18章的表18.6,但经过无量纲的标准化处理。竖线表示区域内不同国家的数值差异;部分指数的国家间差异较大,因此最大值超出了坐标轴范围。

Fig. 2 Four indices related to CRD in 7 regions in the world assessed in the AR6

参考文献 32

[1]	IPCC. Climate change 2014: synthesis report[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014
[2]	Singh P K, Chudasama H. Pathways for climate resilient development: human well-being within a safe and just space in the 21st century[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2021, 68: 102277
[3]	Minx J C, Callaghan M, Lamb W F, et al. Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond[J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 2017, 77: 252-259
[4]	Pearce W, Mahony M, Raman S. Science advice for global challenges: learning from trade-offs in the IPCC[J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 2018, 80: 125-131
[5]	Hasegawa T, Fujimori S, Takahashi K, et al. Scenarios for the risk of hunger in the twenty-first century using shared socioeconomic pathways[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 2015, 10 (1): 014010
[6]	Li S, Juhász-Horváth L, Pedde S, et al. Integrated modelling of urban spatial development under uncertain climate futures: a case study in Hungary[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2017, 96: 251-264
[7]	Li X, Zhou Y, Eom J, et al. Projecting global urban area growth through 2100 based on historical time series data and future shared socioeconomic pathways[J]. Earth’s Future, 2019, 7 (4): 351-362 doi: 10.1029/2019EF001152 URL
[8]	Chen G, Li X, Liu X, et al. Global projections of future urban land expansion under shared socioeconomic pathways[J]. Nature Communications, 2020, 11 (1): 1-12 doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13993-7 URL
[9]	Chen Y, Li X, Liu X, et al. Tele-connecting China’s future urban growth to impacts on ecosystem services under the shared socioeconomic pathways[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2019, 652: 765-779 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.283 URL
[10]	van Ruijven B J, Levy M A, Agrawal A, et al. Enhancing the relevance of shared socioeconomic pathways for climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research[J]. Climatic Change, 2014, 122 (3): 481-494 doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0931-0 URL
[11]	Haines A, Amann M, Borgford-Parnell N, et al. Short-lived climate pollutant mitigation and the sustainable development goals[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2017, 7 (12): 863-869 doi: 10.1038/s41558-017-0012-x URL
[12]	Shindell D, Borgford-Parnell N, Brauer M, et al. A climate policy pathway for near-and long-term benefits[J]. Science, 2017, 356 (6337): 493-494 doi: 10.1126/science.aak9521 pmid: 28473553
[13]	Xu Y Y, Ramanathan V. Well below 2℃: mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes[J]. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 2017, 114 (39): 10315-10323 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618481114 URL
[14]	Nerini F F, Tomei J, To L S, et al. Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the sustainable development goals[J]. Nature Energy, 2018, 3 (1): 10-15 doi: 10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5 URL
[15]	Nicholls R J, Small C. Improved estimates of coastal population and exposure to hazards released[J]. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 2002, 83 (28): 301-305
[16]	Shi H, Singh A. Status and interconnections of selected environmental issues in the global coastal zones[J]. AMBIO: A Journal of The Human Environment, 2003, 32 (2): 145-152 doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-32.2.145 URL
[17]	Small C, Cohen J. Continental physiography, climate, and the global distribution of human population[J]. Current Anthropology, 2004, 45 (2): 269-277 doi: 10.1086/382255 URL
[18]	McMichael C, Dasgupta S, Ayeb-Karlsson S, et al. A review of estimating population exposure to sea-level rise and the relevance for migration[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 2020, 15 (12): 123005
[19]	Woodley S, Locke H, Laffoley D, et al. A review of evidence for area-based conservation targets for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework[J]. Parks, 2019, 25 (2): 31-46
[20]	Brooks C M, Chown S L, Douglass L L, et al. Progress towards a representative network of southern ocean protected areas[J]. PLoS One, 2020, 15 (4): e0231361
[21]	Hannah L, Roehrdanz P R, Marquet P A, et al. 30% land conservation and climate action reduces tropical extinction risk by more than 50%[J]. Ecography, 2020, 43 (7): 943-953 doi: 10.1111/ecog.05166 URL
[22]	Luther D, Beatty C R, Cooper J, et al. Global assessment of critical forest and landscape restoration needs for threatened terrestrial vertebrate species[J]. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2020, 24: e01359
[23]	Zhao Q, Stephenson F, Lundquist C, et al. Where marine protected areas would best represent 30% of ocean biodiversity[J]. Biological Conservation, 244: 108536
[24]	Sala E, Mayorga J, Bradley D, et al. Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate[J]. Nature, 2021, 592 (7854): 397-402 doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z URL
[25]	United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The next frontier: human development and the anthropocene[M]. New York: United Nations Development Programme, 2020
[26]	王蕾, 张百超, 石英, 等. IPCC AR6报告关于气候变化影响和风险主要结论的解读[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2022, 18 (4): 389-394. DOI: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2022.082. doi: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2022.082
	Wang L, Zhang B C, Shi Y, et al. Interpretation of the IPCC AR6 on the impacts and risks of climate change[J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18 (4): 389-394. DOI: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2022.082 (in Chinese) doi: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2022.082
[27]	秦云, 徐新武, 王蕾, 等. IPCC AR6报告关于气候变化适应措施的解读[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2022, 18 (4): 452-459. DOI: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2022.078. doi: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2022.078
	Qin Y, Xu X W, Wang L, et al. Interpretation of the IPCC AR6 on adaptation options of climate change[J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18 (4): 452-459. DOI: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2022.078 (in Chinese) doi: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2022.078
[28]	Antwi-Agyei P, Dougill A J, Agyekum T P, et al. Alignment between nationally determined contributions and the sustainable development goals for West Africa[J]. Climate Policy, 2018, 18 (10): 1296-1312 doi: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1431199 URL
[29]	Atteridge A, Remling E. Is adaptation reducing vulnerability or redistributing it?[J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2018, 9 (1): e500
[30]	Paprocki K. Threatening dystopias: development and adaptation regimes in Bangladesh[J]. Annals of The American Association of Geographers, 2018, 108 (4): 955-973 doi: 10.1080/24694452.2017.1406330 URL
[31]	Mikulewicz M. Thwarting adaptation’s potential? A critique of resilience and climate-resilient development[J]. Geoforum, 2019, 104: 267-282 doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.05.010
[32]	Satyal P, Byskov M F, Hyams K. Addressing multi-dimensional injustice in indigenous adaptation: the case of Uganda’s Batwa community[J]. Climate and Development, 2021, 13 (6): 529-542 doi: 10.1080/17565529.2020.1824888 URL