Reply to Ruhl and Craig: Assessing and governing extreme climate risks needs to be legitimate and democratic
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
.
2022 Dec 6;119(49):e2217404119.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2217404119.
Epub 2022 Nov 29.
Authors
Luke Kemp
1
2
,
Chi Xu
3
,
Joanna Depledge
4
,
Kristie L Ebi
5
,
Goodwin Gibbins
6
,
Timothy A Kohler
7
8
9
,
Johan Rockström
10
,
Marten Scheffer
11
,
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
10
12
,
Will Steffen
13
,
Timothy M Lenton
14
Affiliations
1
Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1SB, UK.
2
Darwin College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EU, UK.
3
School of Life Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China.
4
Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK.
5
Center for Health and the Global Environment, University of Washington, Hans Rosling Center for Population Health, Seattle, WA 98195.
6
Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 0DJ, UK.
7
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4910.
8
Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501.
9
Cluster of Excellence ROOTS, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel 24118, Germany.
10
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Telegraphenberg, Potsdam 14473, Germany.
11
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Wageningen 6708PB, the Netherlands.
12
Earth System Science Department, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
13
Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University 2601, Australia.
14
Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QE, UK.
PMID:
36445961
PMCID:
PMC9894223
DOI:
10.1073/pnas.2217404119
No abstract available