TY - JOUR
T1 - Distinguish between feasibility and desirability when assessing climate response options
AU - Tank, Lukas
AU - Voget-Kleschin, Lieske
AU - Garschagen, Matthias
AU - Boettcher, Miranda
AU - Mengis, Nadine
AU - Holland-Cunz, Antonia
AU - Rehder, Gregor
AU - Baatz, Christian
PY - 2025/4/2
Y1 - 2025/4/2
N2 - The current literature on assessing climate change response options does not sufficiently distinguish between assessing options in terms of their feasibility and in terms of their desirability. One example of this is the IPCC feasibility assessment framework. We argue that assessments of climate response options should indeed cover questions of desirability, but they should do so explicitly. Transparency about underlying normative standards is the key to a productive desirability assessment.
AB - The current literature on assessing climate change response options does not sufficiently distinguish between assessing options in terms of their feasibility and in terms of their desirability. One example of this is the IPCC feasibility assessment framework. We argue that assessments of climate response options should indeed cover questions of desirability, but they should do so explicitly. Transparency about underlying normative standards is the key to a productive desirability assessment.
U2 - 10.1038/s44168-025-00237-2
DO - 10.1038/s44168-025-00237-2
M3 - Article
SN - 2731-9814
VL - 4
JO - npj Climate Action
JF - npj Climate Action
M1 - 34
ER -
