Distinguish between feasibility and desirability when assessing climate response options

Abstract 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 cl...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lukas Tank, Lieske Voget-Kleschin, Matthias Garschagen, Miranda Boettcher, Nadine Mengis, Antonia Holland-Cunz, Gregor Rehder, Christian Baatz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Portfolio 2025-04-01
Series:npj Climate Action
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00237-2
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849769704175960064
author Lukas Tank
Lieske Voget-Kleschin
Matthias Garschagen
Miranda Boettcher
Nadine Mengis
Antonia Holland-Cunz
Gregor Rehder
Christian Baatz
author_facet Lukas Tank
Lieske Voget-Kleschin
Matthias Garschagen
Miranda Boettcher
Nadine Mengis
Antonia Holland-Cunz
Gregor Rehder
Christian Baatz
author_sort Lukas Tank
collection DOAJ
description Abstract 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.
format Article
id doaj-art-1eb145e67803487f9c19226b76cbf54c
institution DOAJ
issn 2731-9814
language English
publishDate 2025-04-01
publisher Nature Portfolio
record_format Article
series npj Climate Action
spelling doaj-art-1eb145e67803487f9c19226b76cbf54c2025-08-20T03:03:20ZengNature Portfolionpj Climate Action2731-98142025-04-01411810.1038/s44168-025-00237-2Distinguish between feasibility and desirability when assessing climate response optionsLukas Tank0Lieske Voget-Kleschin1Matthias Garschagen2Miranda Boettcher3Nadine Mengis4Antonia Holland-Cunz5Gregor Rehder6Christian Baatz7Kiel University (CAU)Kiel University (CAU)Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU)German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research KielKiel University (CAU)Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea ResearchKiel University (CAU)Abstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00237-2
spellingShingle Lukas Tank
Lieske Voget-Kleschin
Matthias Garschagen
Miranda Boettcher
Nadine Mengis
Antonia Holland-Cunz
Gregor Rehder
Christian Baatz
Distinguish between feasibility and desirability when assessing climate response options
npj Climate Action
title Distinguish between feasibility and desirability when assessing climate response options
title_full Distinguish between feasibility and desirability when assessing climate response options
title_fullStr Distinguish between feasibility and desirability when assessing climate response options
title_full_unstemmed Distinguish between feasibility and desirability when assessing climate response options
title_short Distinguish between feasibility and desirability when assessing climate response options
title_sort distinguish between feasibility and desirability when assessing climate response options
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00237-2
work_keys_str_mv AT lukastank distinguishbetweenfeasibilityanddesirabilitywhenassessingclimateresponseoptions
AT lieskevogetkleschin distinguishbetweenfeasibilityanddesirabilitywhenassessingclimateresponseoptions
AT matthiasgarschagen distinguishbetweenfeasibilityanddesirabilitywhenassessingclimateresponseoptions
AT mirandaboettcher distinguishbetweenfeasibilityanddesirabilitywhenassessingclimateresponseoptions
AT nadinemengis distinguishbetweenfeasibilityanddesirabilitywhenassessingclimateresponseoptions
AT antoniahollandcunz distinguishbetweenfeasibilityanddesirabilitywhenassessingclimateresponseoptions
AT gregorrehder distinguishbetweenfeasibilityanddesirabilitywhenassessingclimateresponseoptions
AT christianbaatz distinguishbetweenfeasibilityanddesirabilitywhenassessingclimateresponseoptions