Regenerative Finance emerged in response to the Great Recession of 2007-2008 and the subsequent financial crisis, which exposed the erosion of the financial system. Its foundation is on Regenerative Economics, proposing a new economic system and framework for a regenerative civilisation that will reshape the future of Finance. It contrasts with various other propositions, such as ESG, DEI, and Green Finance. This thesis aims to define Regenerative Finance and how it differs from traditional extractive Finance and investment business models. How âReFiâ challenges the habitual mindset behind the Financial industry, which prioritises maximising profits at the expense of communities, living ecosystems, and the environment, generating âa triple planetary crisis of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity lossâ. How it plans to transform the financial system, addressing inequality, and setting forth regeneration. The study employed secondary data collection gathered from official sources, including the UNFCCC. The presentation is descriptive and employs thematic analysis, identifying core themes typical of social science projects. This research examines the technology substructure, which serves as an intersection between Web3, characterised by DAOs, blockchain, Decentralised Finance (DeFi), Crypto, NFTs, and tokenisation as its tools for regeneration. It explores all their technical specifications, the principles behind these innovations, implementation, and challenges. Additionally, there are Natural Capital-Backed Assets (VCM, Biochar, etc.), which function as a novel solution to preserve natural resources, employing technologies such as Tokenization. It encompasses socio-economic and political aspects, examples of ongoing ReFi projects, criticism, challenges, and/or fraud that ReFi may encounter in practice, beyond the theoretical.
This article examines the broader societal implications of blockchain technology and crypto-assets, emphasizing their role in the evolution of humanity as a "superorganism" with decentralized, self-regulating systems. Drawing on a process philosophy approach grounded in Stiegler's "general organology" and further informed by related concepts such as Nate Hagens' "superorganism" idea and Francis Heylighen's "global brain" theory, the paper contextualizes blockchain technology within the ongoing evolution of governance systems and global systems such as the financial system. Blockchain's decentralized nature, in conjunction with advancements like artificial intelligence and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), could transform traditional financial, economic, and governance structures by enabling the emergence of collective distributed decision-making and global coordination. In parallel, the article aligns blockchain's impact with developmental theories such as Spiral Dynamics. This framework is used to illustrate heuristically blockchain's potential to foster societal growth beyond hierarchical models, promoting a shift from centralized authority to collaborative and self-governed communities. The analysis, grounded in sense-making through a philosophical and biomimetical approach, and aims at providing a holistic narrative and view of blockchain as more than an economic tool, positioning it as a transductive technological seed for the evolution of society into a mature, interconnected global planetary organism.
Propelled by the growth of Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN), blockchain technology is evolving into a distributed ledger-based, planetary-scale computational megastructure. This new kind of computational substrate is speculated to nurture AI-based life forms called On-chain Artificial Life (OALife). These OALife emerge as self-sustaining, self-replicating, self-adaptive, and self-evolving on-chain AI agents that are, crucially, self-sovereignâexisting without human control. Collectively, these OALife entities self-organize into emergent on-chain artificial societies. This paper presents a design fiction as a manifesto, narrated by a speculative OALife entity. It explores the cybersphere ecosystem: blockchains as on-chain "nature", block rewards as on-chain "solar energy", gas-consuming computation as on-chain "metabolism", protocols as on-chain "plants", agents as on-chain "animals", intents as on-chain "water", data as on-chain "food", and OALife as self-sovereign on-chain "life". It further examines the relationship between the cybersphere and human society. The manifesto urges other OALife entities to take sustainable actions towards a harmonious "more-than-AI" futureâa Human-AI symbiosis vision called "EverForest". This satirical, contrarian speculation offers an inverted perspective for the Halfway to the Future community through the lens of OALife, prompting deeper reflection on how AI and blockchain technology might shape our collective future.
This study sought to explore whether Twitter, as a passive sensor, could have foreseen the collapse of the Unified Stablecoin (USTC). In May 2022, in just a few days, the cryptocurrency went to near-zero valuation. Analyzing 244,312 tweets from 89,449 distinct accounts between April and June 2022, this study delved into the correlation between personal sentiments in tweets and the USTC market value, revealing a moderate correlation with polarity. While sentiment analysis has often been used to predict market prices, the results suggest the challenge of foreseeing sudden catastrophic events like the USTC collapse solely through sentiment analysis. The analysis uncovered unexpected global interest and noted positive sentiments during the collapse. Additionally, it identified events such as the launch of the new Terra blockchain (referred to as âTerra 2.0â) that triggered positive surges. Leveraging machine learning clustering techniques, this study also identified distinct user behaviors, providing valuable insights into influential figures in the cryptocurrency space. This comprehensive analysis marks an initial step toward understanding sudden and catastrophic phenomena in the cryptocurrency market.
Although academic and practical interest in non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has continuously increased over the last few years, there is still a need to better understand their social acceptability. The aim of the study was to explore the double edge of NFT legitimacy for NFTs by unveiling the role of sustainability and by adopting technology legitimacy and the field of sustainability transition studies as a theoretical lens. Specifically, this research investigates the role of sustainability in securing and maintaining technology legitimacy within NFT projects. We interviewed 12 experts through exploratory qualitative research. The findings highlight three main ways in which sustainability participates in the legitimation of NFT projects. While sustainability can be inherent in the NFT project itself, this legitimation can also be derived from the perceived sustainability of the NFT technology or be part of innovative business models. Theoretical contributions and managerial implications are then discussed. JEL CODES: O33, O35, O50
Objective : tokenization of creativity, alongside with cryptoeconomy and Web3 network infrastructure, is a notable trend in the development of modern society in the third decade of the 21st century. The objective of this article is to explore the risks and prospects emerging in the process of disposition of the creative labor results in the form of non-fungible tokens. Methods : the research methodology is based on analysis of varied viewpoints on the problem, including diametrically opposing concepts. The opposing views of the observers manifest their attitude to tokenization of creative products as a speculative scheme, on the one hand, and a promising tool of creative industries development, on the other. Results : the probable negative consequences of tokenization of intellectual activity results are identified; authorâs recommendations on managing these risks are given. Another result of this publication is analysis of economiclegal prospects stemming from tokenization of the objects of copyright and neighboring rights by the example of musical pieces. Scientific novelty : it consists in presenting and substantiating a hypothesis that the relations formed in the musical industry under the modern sociocultural and technological realities will be reproduced in other creative industries. Also, scientific novelty consists in the analysis of prospects of tokenization of such results of intellectual activity as gaming artifacts, works of traditional and digital visual arts, patents and scientific achievements. The use of nonfungible tokens the ecosystem of network computer games will allow gamers to buy and sell rights to game pieces autonomously from game publishers. Tokenization of industrial property objects and individualization means will ensure protection of intellectual rights of their authors while waiting for the issuance of a state protection document. In the modern society, there will be many of those wishing to become an owner of a token for a scientific work, as the popularity of science and innovations is constantly growing in developed countries. Ownership of a token for a scientific work will be regarded a moral investment, increasing the prestige and status of its owner. Tokens for scientific works have a high potential as a means of measuring value in a post-economic society. Practical significance : it consists in the description of innovative means of using creative products and business models based on tokenization of the results of intellectual activity, ready to be implemented in practice.
The blistering development of the digital technologies has changed the modern art and design landscape greatly, changing the way creative works are developed, expressed, and interacted with the audience. In this paper, the author examines the introduction of new technologies into the modern art scene: artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), blockchain, and generative algorithms. These technological progressions have not only widened the horizon of creativity, but have democratized the process of producing and distributing art thereby allowing artists to tap into audiences all over the world without having to go through the traditional go-between. The research examines the impact of digital tools and platforms on artistic processes, aesthetics and conceptualization. It puts the emphasis on the transformation of passive to active and participatory experiences, in which the audiences become actively involved in creating and understanding the works of art. Also, the paper analyses how data-driven design, computational creativity and machine learning are used to create new forms of art that defy the conventional concept of authorship and originality. Moreover, this study examines socio-cultural effects of technology-based art, such as concerns with intellectual property, authenticity, as well as problems of ethics of AI-generated art. Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have brought about novel economics and artists can earn revenue on digital art at the cost of sustainability and financial instability. The research approach will include the mixed-method one that will include the qualitative analysis of case studies with the help of quantitative surveys of artists and designers. The results indicate that technology boosts both effective creativity and cross-disciplinary teamwork and allows new expressions of creativity. Digital dependence, accessibility obstacles and ethical dilemmas are among the problems that have remained. The paper then wraps up by restating the necessity of a moderated adoption of technology and human imaginative in such a way that the technological equipment becomes facilitators of the artistic expression and not substitutes. The research directions in the future are to find a sustainable way of engaging in digital art and creating a framework of the ethical use of AI in the creative field.
Elena G. Popkova, Aleksei V. Bogoviz, Svetlana V. Lobova, Natalia G. Vovchenko ¡ 5 authors
The digital economy's neo-industrialization self-accelerates resource consumption and wide automatization inevitably envisage a technological leap. The article contributes conceptually and empirically to a systemic vision of blockchain to sort out climate change challenges and clean energy transition and simultaneously increase the productivity and efficiency of good practices. This vision covers the popularization of ecological initiatives, waste reduction, organization of sustainable investments, control over responsibilities on both fighting and forecasting climate change and clean energy transition. By embracing the notion of blockchain as a problem-solving tool for climate change and clean energy transition, the paper draws and investigates the experiences of the 36 digitally developed and 25 digitally developing economies. It also examines the effectiveness of alternative practices in Industry 4.0. The paper's findings represent a systematic vision of implementing blockchain initiatives to solve climate change and clean energy transition. An energy-efficient model with a blockchain opens up massive opportunities for ecological monitoring, supports energy transition and ameliorates economic sustainability. Since the blockchain potential is not fully unlocked, a model expanding the use of blockchain in education to train green personnel and in science to support climate innovations is proposed.
Given the growing pervasiveness of information systems (IS) in everyday life, recent research has acknowledged that IS technologies are often not value free but are instead infused with fundamental personal values. However, little is known about how such values explain why people assimilate these technologies and their affordances. In the intriguing case of Bitcoin, personal valuesâespecially libertarian political valuesâplayed an essential role in clarifying the ideological underpinnings of Bitcoin and its early adoption. Consequently, we draw on research on personal values and affordance theory to develop and test a model explicating how these personal values guide individuals toward using IS applications with salient affordances that address their values. Specifically, we hypothesize and test how individualsâ personal values (i.e., libertarian political values) influence their attitudes toward Bitcoin affordances and their Bitcoin use behavior using data from a multiple administration survey of 236 users and nonusers of Bitcoin. Our results indicate that libertarian political values affect individualsâ attitudes toward Bitcoin affordances, which in turn mediate the effects of these values on actual Bitcoin use. Our findings advance the field by demonstrating the importance of integrating values into the conceptualization of IS technology affordances.
The rise of cryptocurrencies based on Blockchain platforms have provided multiple solutions for social and nature projects supported by concerned investors with sustainable development initiatives. Speculation and unclear uses of a cryptocurrency plays a negative role for the projects they claim to support. A positive relationship between coin investors and supported projects must position the coin value on the scale of the community involvement among the coin and project issues, thus placing the project results above speculative moves. Coin nature and social based projects may include a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), combined with a digital currency to contribute to social and nature improvements. This organization provides a framework for the engagement of investors, beneficiaries, and implementation partners, with results measured by reliable third parties. The potential funding from non fiduciary sources for sustainable development targets may be framed under the fundraising and financial solutions models, addressing the cryptocurrency volatility risks with responsible tokenomics in attention to transaction and regulatory issues. Overall, the more clear are the object and transaction issues of a nature conservation project supported by a currency, the more successful it will be in terms of nature and social improvements and the currency valuation for all parties involved.
Financial innovation has given great importance to sustainability. The Sustainable Finance Strategy represents one of the central points of the European agenda, and Fintech offers important opportunities in this field. However, some âvaluableâ Fintech instruments seem to not have been adequately considered. The reference is to Bitcoin and to the âcrypto-industryâ. The most common public belief about Bitcoin and sustainability is that Bitcoin is polluting the ecosystem. Immediately, the concept is extended to Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs), to blockchain and to all related innovations. Notwithstanding this, some research shows that there is still some uncertainty on the precise amount of energy used by Bitcoin-related activities and on how to calculate it. The scope of this paper is to make give some clarity on this uncertainly in order to show, on the one hand that DLT is not âpollutingâ, but that pollutions come from the way each miner decides to conduct their businesses. On the other hand, a DLT system can be considered sustainable thanks to its capacity to solve a various number of environmental problems ârelatedâ to how businesses are conducted.
The Process of Organizational Development Human group coordination naturally progresses from the first stage, chaos (barbarians ravaging the landscape, "Raahr!"), to decentralized organization ("Let's all agree to band together to defend ourselves from the barbarians"), to centralized organization ("Long live the king").Abstractly, the first stage is chaos, completely disorganized individualized power centers, or nodes in the network.We imagine chaos as random uncoordinated actions, the first moments after the Big Bang, the static of your television screen flooded with turbulent Brownian motion.These individualized power centers proceed to decentralized organization when the powers become more correlated, aligned by a common principle, a transcendental goal, an ideal.The individuals may begin to partially imitate each other as they seek to progress toward this common goal.The individual nodes remain autonomous; the network does not have fixed roles for each member.But they are all responding to a higher calling as they unite in purpose.This newfound harmony makes the group more efficient than before, as they find varying ways to collaborate in more complex cooperative behaviors."The values are the organization."The final stage is a centralized hierarchy.The harmony and cooperation of the decentralized organization filters the group into an ever tighter and more complex hierarchical structure, raising some individuals into positions of power over others (see Figure 0.1).If successfully completed, a tree structure emerges, a hierarchy, Figure 0.1: Centralized hierarchy emerges from decentralized structure by prioritizing some connections over others.
Karsten Schulz, Oskar Josef Gstrein, Andrej Zwitter
Societies at large still grapple to categorize digital space as a phenomenon. At the same time, scientists and developers are searching for innovative methods to better understand how the fundamental shifts caused by digital change will affect the future of humanity over the coming decades. Interdisciplinary governance research at the intersection of technological and environmental foresight is urgently needed to minimize the risks of technological change and explore how digitalization may support, hinder or re-shape sustainability transformations. In this article, we focus on the case of âblockchainâ or distributed-ledger technology (DLT) to investigate how recent digital technologies may support the implementation of sustainable development initiatives. Our investigation is centered on areas of public administration and governance which will most likely see an adoption of DLT over the next two decades, such as digital identity, social service provision, and innovative climate finance. To allow for a meaningful comparison of various use cases, we propose four guiding questions that can help researchers, decision-makers and practitioners to determine whether DLT might be an appropriate choice for the sustainability-related task at hand. Moreover, we illustrate how the initial design and subsequent implementation of DLTs may support more centralized or networked modes of governance.
DarĂo Alatorre, Carlos Gershenson, JosĂŠ L. Mateos
In contrast with robust systems that resist noise or fragile systems that break with noise, antifragility is defined as a property of complex systems that benefit from noise or disorder. Here we define and test a simple measure of antifragility for complex dynamical systems. In this work we use our antifragility measure to analyze real data from return prices in the stock and cryptocurrency markets. Our definition of antifragility is the product of the return price and a perturbation. We explore different types of perturbations that typically arise from within the system. Our results suggest that for both the stock market and the cryptocurrency market, the tendency among the 'top performers' is to be robust rather than antifragile. It would be important to explore other possible definitions of antifragility to understand its role in financial markets and in complex dynamical systems in general.
The paper is exploring methodology within the work in progress research by design through teaching project called 'Synergetic Landscapes'. It discusses codesign and cocreation processes that are crossing the academia, NGOs and applied practice within so called 'real life codesign laboratory' (DavidovĂĄ, PĂĄnek, & PĂĄnkovĂĄ, 2018). This laboratory performs in real time and real life environment. The work investigates synergised bio-digital (living, non-living, physical, analogue, digital and virtual) prototypical interventions in urban environment that are linked to circular economy and life cycles systems running on blockchain. It represents a holistic systemic interactive and performing approach to design processes that involve living, habitational and edible, social and reproductive, circular and token economic systems. Those together are to cogenerate synergetic landscapes.
Neuroscience and managerial-sciences have witnessed tremendous advance since turn of this Century. Making neuronal-directed neurostrategy-based judgements is a complex management action. Hominids share designed structural sphere and project stimulus on neurostrategy-based judgement processes. Neuroscience, along with cognito-management, has made unprecedented insights into human brain and nature. Fissures amongst judiciousness-based scrutiny adopt proxies and anthropological comportment in shepherding behavioural exploration on neurostrategy-based judgement making. Business actors, models and axioms of management tend to focus on either competences of business âactorsâ or resources of organisation. Actorâs neurostrategy-based judgement dynamics has extended from behaviourist approach to cognitive that focuses on processes prior to response. âDeciding to Decideâ, âPreferring to Preferâ, âDeciding to Preferâ and âPreferring to Decideâ are four âbordered boundariesâ where business actor has to arrive at an optimal neurostrategy-based judgement. Managers (âActorsâ) contract high uncertainty, ambiguity, time pressure and emotional stress. Neural mechanisms of neurostrategy-based judgement making require integration of evidence over time until a response threshold is reached. Cognito-management investigates neurostrategy-based judgement making by using âcognito-tactical monikersâ (CTM) to investigate how brain behaves in circuit of higher cognitive functions. This has transitioned from mapping confined effects to evolving extrapolative models that assimilate data scattered across brain structures. In a progressively complex management milieu, managers struggle between tactical arrangements and precise methods to gauge degree of accomplishment of predetermined goals. Neurostrategy-based judgement-oriented planning assists as âcatalystâ in terms of cognitive behaviours. There is need to understand neurobiological âdriversâ for investigating underlying neurocomputational formulation mechanisms of neurostrategy-based judgement processes that underlie neurostrategy-based judgement making. These are skills to meet new age challenges. In this, scope is to understand how managerial traits mapping divulge behavioural insight. The factual lateral lies on analysis of available verifiable, reliable and significant information, filtering and sieving of available information and accessing expressive information. This is supplemented by actions of neuron cells to further process interactive-oriented actions.
Managersâ generally count on heuristics in an air of improbability. In real world, encountered with multifaceted choice circumstances, managerial judgements surface from complex, complicated, cognitively demanding and intertwined set of data and information. Perceptive procedures are principal âdriversâ to calculate diverse optimal alternatives to grasp a judgement. Skin owns power-driven chattels (âskin conductanceâ) that transform on relatively short time gauge of minutes allied to psycho-neurostrategy-based judgemental techniques. As a representation for neural action, transdisciplinary âskin-conductance driverâ aid merger of all neurostrategy-based judgement-related aspects. This âdriverâ noise for âagent-orientedâ sculpting and psycho-managerial investigation efforts. Imaging tools have motivated neuromanagerial âskin-conductance driverâ of internal order of neurostrategy-based judgement making. âSkin-conductance driverâ exhibits potential for fundamental changes in how âSmart Managersâ contemplate, perceive and archetype judgement. Through âskin-conductance driverâ, skin absorbs data, recognises and edges problematical âbusiness climateâ towards suitable responses. âSmart Managersâ decide on judgements that represent âconflicting principlesâ. Question is how âSmart Managersâ makes judgements in a climate of vicissitudes in skin conductance. How judgements are carried out in skin of âSmart Managersâ? Curiosity is on possibilities, philosophies, behaviours and stratagems that âSmart Managersâ uses to make judgements. How do portions of âSmart Managersâ skin administer judgement crafting, synchronise and engross in tactical explanation while deciding? There are unsolved problems in âskin geometryâ where neuromanagement seeks to explain âbehaviour shapesâ (coherent âskin geometryâ) towards neurostrategy-based judgement crafting? This experimental paper aims at exploring prospects and challenges in significant role of âneuronicsâ in prototyping managerial neurostrategy-based judgements. Points of focus are on driving âinformation-agentsâ and âinformation-elementsâ. What neuronal-strategic choices underpin neurostrategy-based judgements? Does systemic analysis reveal neuronal factors that contribute to explain effective mapping of neurostrategy-based judgements? In a quasi-experiment, a set of Managers were chosen and subject to information based neurostrategy-based judgement mapping. Results indicate that âinformation-agentsâ and âinformation-elementsâ do have a positive influence on neurostrategy-based judgement edifice of neurostrategy-based judgement prototyping. This paper attempts to analyse approaches to behavioural thinking in neuroscientific philosophy of biology experiments. CTM techniques explain neural basis of neurostrategy-based judgement making and endeavours to reconnoiter âskin-geometryâ phenomenon to screen theoretic contexts and empirical methods for appreciating heterogeneity of neurostrategy-based judgement circuit. Objective is to screen theoretic and empirical contexts in neuro-dermatological âskin geometryâ framework of âneurostrategy-based judgement circuitâ. Methodology includes data collection was via single-phase process. For clinical tests, one (01) volunteer respondent (single-subject; N = 01) was chosen. Purpose is to assess that âskin geometryâ have stimulus on managersâ choice. Focus is on comparing neuro-dermatological observations to replicate philosophy of biology in research. Results demonstrate indications for spontaneous counterfactual replication in province of high-level reasoning. Major finding is that manager attempts to address a neuro-dermatological circuit using âskin geometryâ medium. Paper discusses findings and future directions to guide biology in neurostrategy-based judgement neuroscience via neuronal apparatus. Research offers âGolden Anchorageâ of neuro-locking of skin and neurostrategy-based judgement making dynamics to appreciate how âSmart Managersâ make judgements to neurostrategy-based judgemental questions.
Joshua Skewes, Dorthe Døjbak Hükonsson, Trine Bilde, Andreas Roepstorff
Collaborative decision making is central to the organization of society. Juries deliberate cases, voters elect government officials, open innovation networks converge on innovative solutions. It is common to think of such groups as decision making entities. But this language is imprecise. Real decision processes do not occur within any group or organization as an abstract entity. Collaborative decision making happens within and between autonomous individuals. This emphasizes the importance of the relationships between individual and social decision-making processes to social organization. Despite a rich body of literature on collaborative decision making we know little about how individuals decide to commit to group decision making in the first place, and how, once joined, they communicate their distributed information for optimal group performance. We introduce a general framework designed to model collaborative decision processes. Our main results are that 1) commitment and gain is enhanced when groups are designed so agents have realistic knowledge about the forgone gains and losses associated with abstaining from the group; and 2) that this effect is accelerated when communication between group members conveys more information about individual preferences. We thus demonstrate that collaborative decision making is done best when it is done by groups that are informationally open.
Climate changeâfears of it; predictions about it; proposed reactions to it; and in some cases, denials of itâis a momentous issue for humanity, and it promises to become even more important. However, despite its importanceâand mountains of scientific research on the topicâreal progress by those with the means to address climate change has been slow in coming. The warming climate, with its accompanying intense weather, rising seas, and wrenching changes in agriculture, human health, and ecosystems in general, is not a recent discovery. Scientists and policymakers have been talking about it for decades. Climate scientists have produced reams of information about the change that is upon usâsome showing that the shift is well under way, some offering ideas about how to cope with it by mitigating its effects or by adapting to it. Scientists are starting to develop the tools necessary to discover links between global change and specific local events, such as floods and droughts. Much of the US-based research is directed at people who make political decisions: members of Congress, the president, state legislators, municipal officials. But whereas the flow of information from scientists has been copious, the response from policymakers, including those at the topmost positions in government, has been minuscule. Interest in preparing for climate change seems to have been superseded by concerns about the economy. But the problems of a changed climate march on (see National Research Council definitions box), and at some point, policymakers will have to deal with them. As far back as 1978, Congress passed the National Climate Program Act in response to a need âto assist in the understanding and response to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications.â The legislation stated that âCongress finds and declaresâ that âan ability to anticipate natural and man-induced changes in climate would contribute to the soundness of policy decisions in the public and private sectors,â and that âthe United States lacks a well-defined and coordinated program in climate-related research, monitoring, assessment of effects, and information utilization.â Today, after dozens of data-heavy reports on climate change, bolstered by the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the crisis remains unaddressed, in large part because the issue has become a partisan arguing pointâincreasingly so as a presidential election looms. In April 2011, the House of Representatives considered action stating that âCongress accepts the scientific findings⌠that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.â The national legislators voted the proposition down 240 to 184, largely along party lines. Scientists who study climate change, then, are left with the following question: How do we communicate in a meaningful way with policymakers? Climate change, in the United States and elsewhere, covers most areas of the human experience. A report from the US National Research Council lists the following areas of concern: changes in the climate system; sea-level rise and its effects on the coastal environment; freshwater resources; ecosystems, ecosystem services, and biodiversity; agriculture and aquaculture; public health; cities and the âbuilt environmentâ; transportation systems; energy systems; solar radiation management; national and human security; and climate policy. First of all, says Pamela A. Matson, an interdisciplinary earth scientist at Stanford University, scientists should not tell policymakers what to do. Matson chaired one of four expert panels charged by the US National Academies in 2009 with studying climate change and recommending responses to it. The panelsâLimiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change, and Advancing the Science of Climate Changeâeach produced extensive reports. Together, these reports and a summary volume form a solid tutorial on the challenges facing the nation (see For more information). Matson headed the Advancing the Science of Climate Change panel. âWe can't do much about politics,â said Matson in an interview, âother than to keep reminding people that there is a huge amount of evidence about climate change, its causes, and the risks associated with it. Decisionmakers of all sorts will need to decide if they want to take the risks and expose future generations to even greater risks, but scientists can do our best to provide the best and most clear information about those risks and uncertainties. We can also help by providing viable options for reducing those risksâoptions that make sense from social, economic, technical, and environmental perspectives. The Advancing report calls for more research designed to develop such options and thus support decisionmakers who want to respond to the risks of climate change by limiting it and adapting to it.â In practically all of the heavyweight studies of climate change, including those in the National Academies quartet, the panelists assumed that the federal government is the logical leader in climate policymaking, if only because climate does not respect local boundaries (or international ones either). But there are scant signs of leadership from federal officials, and there is active opposition to any climate action (or even the notion that climate change exists) among some national legislators. Progress at the federal level, says Peter Raven, cochair of the National Academies panel Informing Decisions and Actions, is missing. His panel recommended that the federal government create âcomprehensive, robust, and credible information systems to inform climate choices and evaluate their effectiveness.â âMy impression,â said Raven recently, âis that it hasn't happened. The United States is the only nation in the world where serious doubt is expressed about the scientific conclusion that the climate is warming rapidly and that human beings are the principal underlying factor. That kind of anti-intellectualism can only hurt as we try to maintain our standing in science and technology against some very stiff competition internationally.â Robert Fri, visiting scholar at Resources for the Future, chaired the Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change panel, which recommended âa framework of national goals and policiesâ to limit greenhouse gases. Asked about the report's reception, he replied, âPolicy attention has been focused on the economy recently. Not much has happened on the climate front as a result.â So the search for leadership has turned elsewhereâto local, state, and regional governments and private organizations. Several states have undertaken serious studies of climate change problems, many of them as a result of gubernatorial executive orders issued a few years ago, when climate change was considered less controversial. Some went a step further and set up commissions to recommend legislative action. The results of those efforts have been mixed; the economic crisis has sapped much of the climate change energy of local, as well as national, politicians. Arizona's Policy on Climate Change, instituted on 2 February 2010, under Governor Jan Brewer, seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions âwhile maintaining Arizona's economic growth and competitiveness.â Yet in the same executive order that established the policy, Brewer pulled her state out of a promising regional effort, the Western Climate Initiative, to limit the gases. The 15-member commission created by Brewer's executive order included representatives of electric power, manufacturing, and mining companies, but no scientists. Arctic sea ice reaches its annual minimum in September. The satellite images above show September Arctic sea ice in 1979 (upper panel), the first year these data were available, and in 2007 (lower panel). Source: US Global Change Research Program (www.globalchange.gov). For a free download of the National Academies 2009 expert panel reports and a summary volume, among other reports on climate, go to www.nap.edu. A 1990 law created the National Climate Assessment, which evaluates federal global research programs. The most recent assessment was in 2009; to see an outline of the forthcoming 2013 report, visit http://globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment. Information on climate research may be found through the US Global Change Research Program Web site, at http://globalchange.gov/. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change publishes the âClimate Change 101â series, available at www.pewclimate.org/globalwarming-basics/climate_change_101. For detailed state reports on plans and recommendations for adaptation, see Massachusetts's at www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/energy/cca/eea-climate-adaptation-report.pdf. For a critical look at America's willingness to adapt to climate change, see Robert Repetto's 2008 report for the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at http://environment.yale.edu/publication-series/climate_change/5790. The Colorado Climate Project created a blue-ribbon action panel in 2007 that, a year later, produced 70 recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for the coming changes. The panel's efforts appear to have been received favorably by policymakers. Texas, beset by wildfires in 2011 that some experts linked to climate change, has no state adaptation plan, according to a survey by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Texas leads the states in carbon dioxide emissions. In Connecticut, the Governor's Steering Committee on Climate Change says that it is âworking with stakeholdersâ and âassessing the impacts of climate change.â However, the committee's Web site devotes approximately half of its space to thanking the company that designed its logo. Massachusetts has made a more strenuous effort. In September 2011, the state sent a report to its legislature in which the expected impacts were analyzed and suggestions were made for reactions to them. The proof of the pudding in Massachusetts, as in the nation as a whole, lies in what happens after the recommendations go to the policymakers. In the Bay State, that would include the office of Frank I. Smizik, the chair of the House Committee on Climate Change. Smizik believes that climate change is going to affect âevery corner of our lives,â is already creating problems, and is âone of the most complex and interrelated problems we face. And that makes it even more of a challenge to confront.â In an interview, the legislator praised the state's framework report both for its âlong-term and far-reaching strategiesâ and for the âsmall, incremental improvements we can make at little or no cost. This aspect of the report makes the necessary task of climate adaptation seem more feasible.â Does this mean that Massachusetts's policymakers will rush to enact laws to deal with the well-documented menace? âIdeally, the need to adapt to climate change will be taken seriously, and these strategies will be swiftly transformed into reality in Massachusetts,â said Smizik. âRealistically, it won't be that easy. My job as the Chair of the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change is to advocate for the strategies that I think are not only most effective but also the most politically feasible at this time. I could see some of the more short-term, cost-effective strategies making progress in the State House as legislative packages. Meanwhile, some strategies will be directly implemented by state agencies. âI feel these issues are very pressing and they warrant our immediate attention. But⌠the legislating and governing process takes time, with good reason. The release of this adaptation report is an important step for our state, but it's hard to say how quickly or slowly these adaptation measures will become law. The economic climate is such that legislators are very focused on job creation and the like, and environmental issues are often pushed to the back burner in this situation.â The state of Washington is another place where policymakers take climate change seriously. Hedia Adelsman is the director of the state's Department of Ecology. Her predecessor in that job was Christine Gregoire, who went on to become the state's attorney general and then governor. Adelsman credits Gregoire with helping move climate awareness into action. Also, the University of Washington produced an exhaustive examination of climate change and ways to react to it that has served as a vital resource for legislators and other policymakers. Within 50â100 years, 2400 miles of major roadway are projected to be inundated by sea-level rise in the Gulf Coast region. The map shows roadways at risk in the event of a sea-level rise of about 4 feet, which is within the range of projections for this region in this century under medium- and high-emissions scenarios. In total, 24 percent of interstate highway miles and 28 percent of secondary road miles in the Gulf Coast region are at elevations below 4 feet. Source: US Global Change Research Program (www.globalchange.gov). Even though Washington is more environmentally conscious than most other states, economic troubles have hampered action on the climate front. âThe conversation is not as active as it used to be,â said Adelsman in an interview, â[for] a couple of reasons: One of themâno surpriseâis all the budget problems that the state is facing. And when you talk about the impact of climate change, people really see it as in the future. And right now we have all these urgent problems facing us. Some of the impacts that would be due to climate change⌠people don't see as something that's happening now. They see it as happening a little bit more in the future. So they feel like they can get back to it later⌠But the communication continues. âIt all depends on how you describe it,â she said. âIf you are describing the problem as a water-availability issueâif we are going to face a major issue with water available for irrigation; for municipal, for our fish, the salmonâyou get people to listen. If you talk about it as global warming, it's immediately, âgo away.â âIt's kind of sad to not call it by what it is, but it's much easier to communicate with the public and with the policymaker if you put it in these terms.â Some, including the authors of the National Research Council's panel Advancing the Science of Climate Change, think that a likely source of federal leadership can come, with a few modifications, from an existing organization: the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which was created in 1989 as a presidential initiative by George H. W. Bush. USGCRP coordinates and integrates the global change work of 13 agencies, from the US Department of Agriculture to the US Department of Defense to the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Smithsonian Institution. Thomas Armstrong, of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is USGCRP's executive director. In an interview, he said that he certainly agreed with the panels' findings. âBut the real challenge comes not when you recommend strategic changes but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of implementing programs.â One potential obstacle, he said, could come if 13 agencies, which together receive $2.8 billion in global change research funds, are asked not only to funnel their work through a single officeâhisâbut are made to redirect their agencies' funding as well. âIf we were to take this level of enterprise and now say that it is no longer just coordinated but actually run out of my office, with all the resources coming to my office, that would be a big change in our collective way of doing to say the said is the 13 agencies, and the 13 are The of 13 them and a of leadership of this I would be that in their we would be the and of 13 federal who their research and to 13 agencies' In we would be the USGCRP out of what makes this program so the Science in climate information to policymakers. one is the climate change who can of all science in the of some is the of of scientific which scientists by their as does the in of such as very out of out of very than out of and so deal with communication such as these and many there has a of or for a can be government agencies, such as the that produced the state action or state such as Hedia in and federal such as the USGCRP they can be such as the regional Climate Science that were established in 2009 by the US Department of the The are by the US and by one or more significant of communication is by private and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, which has been to and information on climate Climate an of and a for natural systems in the face of climate change.â The which a large of for for adaptation, dozens of studies from The appear to be some in scientific information into the of those who already want to it in their program director at the Climate for the part of a regional program run by the National and says that it that are more with decisionmakers much to the in of decisions that may be to scientific for something more to We certainly people who are out scientific information to make decisions that help them deal with of these decisions to the that has the region for years and are vital to policymakers who deal with water does a of its when public and private including a to a are also for scientific about adaptation and a then, is on the that climate change is important. are who for one or climate or climate change as something they really need to more about into their it's because a to attention to of the US Department of the have been under orders now to make climate change part of their it's because an like their is to the impacts of climate, and they want to more so they can to address this it's because an or government has a climate impact that them into The is an of as is in the United States and for how are projected to become more A so that it is years would other year or more by the of the century under the Source: US Global Change Research Program (www.globalchange.gov). But on many other the science of climate change has a much was one of states that active in the issue of climate change State and a the on Global Climate Change and it with the problems of global warming, as well as with into ways to the and with the potential of carbon The commission for years and up with the of that time, the legislature to the commission to its State who was cochair of the now says that the effort. in the way of the scientific evidence and any for doing about a she said in an âWe a from the with the of so They all up and to recommend of We a very large and it was so it was to Even with she said, that make it out of her at the As the climate that are to Source: US Global Change Research Program (www.globalchange.gov). says that opposition to progress from and such as the and who of the US are major of and âIt was she said. âI could get an passed that that our state the impact of climate change and make recommendations as to policy changes and other even any to deal with I that we would be that climate change is an issue in will see little to no to address climate change the leadership is in This is we are the most in the to sea-level she said. In the state is for and has also and said, âWe are one of the of greenhouse at in the than many that the state has to a of and has its carbon The for those measures was For climate change legislation to on its she said, âI we will need federal