What are the top research needs for climate change adaptation and resilience?

Adaptation is unique to systems, livelihoods, societies, etc but we can have strategic pathways designed, monitored and compared for the various livelihoods, systems and people. Once these pathways are in place, adopting them to suit local needs becomes easy. How to make them bankable or economically viable to attract investments is also key. Otherwise they will remain in paper. Who defines these and how are they made accessible and trusted by various stakeholders? Have they been tested somewhere and proven to be working? How do we adjust from the pilots and what are the measures of their success? I believe every sector and region, livelihoods and systems need these to define resilience development pathways.

There is a need of implementation and not research. There are a good number of initiatives, methodologies and the Sharm El Sheikh adaptation agenda that covers as guidelines. The implementation needs financing and financing Adaptation and Resilience projects need’s finnovation and not the traditional conventional financial instruments. Blended finance, debt swaps, VCM , ECA … etc.

Instead of adapting, we should be researching agile approaches instead that prepare for the worst while progressing towards the future. I am writing this in Japan and would really wish we approach clinate change the way the Japanese approach natural diasters by: 1) Using technology to measure, track and mitigate risk 2) Education and awareness promotion so everyone does their part 3) Respect the power of nature and this prioritise being prepared over profits But most importantly... 4) No let risk hinder progress and advancement. Still amazed how such a diaster prone nation can be so advanced.

Tackling climate change research is like being a detective in a nature-themed mystery novel. Top needs include understanding local impacts – because what happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic. We need data on how ecosystems are playing musical chairs with changing temperatures, and models that predict climate changes with more accuracy than my weather app. Researching sustainable technologies is crucial, kind of like inventing a planetary air conditioner. Also, let's not forget social science – figuring out how to get humans, who can barely agree on pizza toppings, to unite against climate change. It's a mix of science, technology, and a dash of group therapy!

O método para derrubar uma floresta, por exemplo, é basicamente o mesmo em todo o mundo. Conhecemos os equipamentos, metodologias, custos… Mas para restaurar uma área, as peculiaridades de cada ambiente, solo, clima ditarão o modelo de recuperação. O mundo chega a um momento onde é preciso fazer alguma coisa! Macro metodologias podem ser usadas, porém com com brechas e margens para adaptações quando percebido que o modelo não está adequado. Acredito que temos que criar linhas de base e à medida que os projetos evoluírem, a linha deve se adaptar, gerando novos dados e métodos, passando a informação adiante. Cooperação deve ser uma palavra chave

It’s difficult to develop a Resilience indicator in the absence of Resilient system and no history to benchmark against. The starting point should be highlighting the physical climate risks and their impacts on people, livelihoods, investments and biodiversity. Then develop mitigation plans and the requirements to be resilient against the weather hazards . Usually Insurance companies conduct these type of analysis as part of their due diligence, and Insurance companies need to be more integrated into the Sustainable Finance system to de-risk physical climate risks and unlock resilience financing to support Resilience Investible Projects.

I am a physicist by university training, a statistician from postdoc experience, and I work as a climate researcher for now over thirty years. With many other colleagues, I come to realize that politicians and decision makers are not really able to install effective mitigation measures (to limit greeenhouse has emissions). This is disappointing. However, in turn this also means that resilience and adaptation to climate change become ever more important. It is encouraging to see that more and more people are beginning to realize this. Therefore I warmly welcome this feature by Linkedin on climate change adaption, and I do hope to contribute more on that in the future. Thank you for your trust!

As regards an indicator for resilience, not at all is this a trivial job. It requires intuition, creativity and the other ingredients mentioned by the AI tool on the left. Notably, the tool mentions data, which need to be abundant in order to to perform an resilience assessment in practice. If I may add from the viewpoint of statistical sciences, a suitable resilience measure also has to bear robustness: it should be less influenced if some assumptions are not exactly fulfilled. Some of these (e.g., normally distributed random components) simply have to be made to come up with a quantitative estimate. The designed measure should be tested in computer simulation experiments for its robustness, the associated uncertainties and such.

Entendo que o conhecimento local, cultura, costumes são imprescindíveis para criar indicadores de resiliência. É um grande desafio estabelecer indicadores a nível global. A cooperação em todos os níveis da sociedade é imprescindível para se criar indicadores de resiliência

I have to admit to have been trained in the traditional way: Physics, Geology and Statistics. I study climate change. Most of my papers, books, the generated knowledge about the climate comes from independent, "alone" thinking. However, my ideas build on previous knowledge and research, done by others. Often I merely adapt data analysis tools and then l apply them. Once the thinking is mature enough, then the act of writing and publishing comes. Then I do expose my thoughts to the outside academic world. I am grateful for any feedback and criticism by others. This I see as a help to further improve my thinking. In that sense I would be ready to agree that the generated knowledge has been co-produced.

I would like to raise the topic of how incubators help the co-production of knowledge and what are the current gaps they are not addressing. From my experience with climate change "focused" incubators like Greentown Labs and PnP, they do foster a community and create an environment for generating new ideas and solutions. However, incubators have not fostered B2B knowledge and IP co-production. Each company is still out for itself and there is a perception of a zero-sum game for sharing sources of investment capital. We are developing methodologies for collaborative incubators and investment platforms. We plan to create ecosystems for growing value through collaboration and join IP/product development. Welcome any co-production!

I agree with Alex — there’s an opportunity to re-think and redesign the way innovators, incubators, investors and corporates work together. It needn’t be a zero sum game, but often feels like even less than that. A few suggestions: 1. Form collaborative consortia, comprising groups of interested innovators, problem owners and investors, to attack key unmet challenges. Each party contributes according to their role and capabilities. Share IP and knowledge within these consortia until there has been a reasonable opportunity to commercialize. 2. Make liberal use of “reverse pitches”, where the focus is on gaining clarity on problems and unmet needs, rather than pre-supposing solutions. A strong consortium will find good solutions.

Co-production of knowledge is essential for developing, scaling, and transforming science into application or products. In my opinion, there is a definite lack of communication and collaboration between the various actors involved in research, product development and policy making. This leads to less than desirable scientific solutions which often fail or are underutilised by the local community. The internet bridges some of the gap between researchers and practitioners. But there is a lack of incentive and even outright arrogance to prevent scientific communication to policymakers & the general public without a motive of profit. There is more to research and companies than just higher profit margins.

I fear we have arrived at a point where yet more research is most unlikely to deliver the climate outcomes we need soon enough. Imagine if Apollo 13 ground control had said “we need more research”! Where do we look to for a different approach? My work with high-performance teams suggested that the way we fast track learning when we don’t have much time is just to start DOING. So, researchers, try breaking out of the security of the academic mindset and become courageous DOERS. Take your imperfect knowledge and grow it into experience and know-how through hands on action. Get directly involved in delivering solutions and delivering them fast. Simon Sharpe in his great book suggests we need to act five times faster. Go do it. Good luck.

A mudança climática não tem fronteiras. Enquanto líderes negarem a emergência climática, as medidas serão tomadas de forma reativa, e pode ser tarde demais. É um desafio sensibilizar toda a humanidade da emergência que já chegou. Enquanto países fizerem guerras entre si, uma governança transfronteiriça não terá efetividade, vide o protagonismo cada vez menor da ONU nos conflitos atuais

There is also technical transformational change. This includes geo-engineering large-scale modifications of Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming. Of the methods, solar radiation management is by far the quickest, least expensive, and has the most potentially unintended side effects (i.e. altering rain patterns, ozone layer changes, and unilateral governance). Geo-engineering is not a substitute for reducing emissions but more of a Hail Mary given the lack of real and timely progress on GHG reductions. We need more conversations on this topic, with international agreements on trials and protocols, to create a basis for decision-making and management of consequences.

Acho necessária uma mudança no comportamento da população mundial. Rever o consumo, os serviços, os meios de transporte. Os bens de consumo precisam voltar a ser “duráveis”… o “pensar global” está bem claro para as pessoas, porém, o “agir localmente” se perdeu no meio de tanta informação. As ações devem ser mais focadas nas comunidades e em suas peculiaridades

Sufficient knowledge and technology exist already to deal with the problem of climate change. The problem lies in implementing the best solutions. Many proposed high-tech solutions, such as, say, stratospheric aerosol injection(!), pose great risk of terrible unintended consequences. Such consequences are how we developed this crisis in the first place. Addressing problems of tech with more tech will not necessarily solve them. The solutions lie in NATURE. We need to preserve, protect, heal, enhance nature around the globe. Industrial ag creates huge problems that can be solved with regenerative agriculture. Soil can absorb atmospheric carbon. We must start the shift now. Bonus: it can also re-empower local farmers and communities.

We need to develop ways to finance adaptation and resilience. And insurance mechanisms too. Whatever happened to catastrophe bonds? I used to love that idea!