Recommendations for Better Sharing of Climate Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Creative Commons: “…the culmination of a nine-month research initiative from our Open Climate Data project. These guidelines are a result of collaboration between Creative Commons, government agencies and intergovernmental organizations. They mark a significant milestone in our ongoing effort to enhance the accessibility, sharing, and reuse of open climate data to address the climate crisis. Our goal is to share strategies that align with existing data sharing principles and pave the way for a more interconnected and accessible future for climate data.

Our recommendations offer practical steps and best practices, crafted in collaboration with key stakeholders and organizations dedicated to advancing open practices in climate data. We provide recommendations for 1) legal and licensing terms, 2) using metadata values for attribution and provenance, and 3) management and governance for better sharing.

Opening climate data requires an examination of the public’s legal rights to access and use the climate data, often dictated by copyright and licensing. This legal detail is sometimes missing from climate data sharing and legal interoperability conversations. Our recommendations suggest two options: Option A: CC0 + Attribution Request, in order to maximize reuse by dedicating climate data to the public domain, plus a request for attribution; and Option B: CC BY 4.0, for retaining data ownership and legal enforcement of attribution. We address how to navigate license stacking and attribution stacking for climate data hosts and for users working with multiple climate data sources.

We also propose standardized human- and machine-readable metadata values that enhance transparency, reduce guesswork, and ensure broader accessibility to climate data. We built upon existing model metadata schemas and standards, including those that address license and attribution information. These recommendations address a gap and provide metadata schema that standardize the inclusion of upfront, clear values related to attribution, licensing and provenance.

Lastly, we highlight four key aspects of effective climate data management: designating a dedicated technical managing steward, designating a legal and/or policy steward, encouraging collaborative data sharing, and regularly revisiting and updating data sharing policies in accordance with parallel open data policies and standards…(More)”.

Net zero: the role of consumer behaviour

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Horizon Scan by the UK Parliament: “According to research from the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformation, reaching net zero by 2050 will require individual behaviour change, particularly when it comes to aviation, diet and energy use.

The government’s 2023 Powering Up Britain: Net Zero Growth Plan referred to low carbon choices as ‘green choices’, and described them as public and businesses choosing green products, services, and goods. The plan sets out six principles regarding policies to facilitate green choices. Both the Climate Change Committee and the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee have recommended that government strategies should incorporate greater societal and behavioural change policies and guidance.

Contributors to the horizon scan identified managing consumer behaviour and habits to help achieve net zero as a topic of importance for parliament over the next five years. Change in consumer behaviour could result in approximately 60% of required emission reductions to reach net zero.[5] Behaviour change will be needed from the wealthiest in society, who according to Oxfam typically lead higher-carbon lifestyles.

Incorporating behavioural science principles into policy levers is a well-established method of encouraging desired behaviours. Common examples of policies aiming to influence behaviour include subsidies, regulation and information campaigns (see below).

However, others suggest deliberative public engagement approaches, such as the UK Climate Change Assembly,[7] may be needed to determine which pro-environmental policies are acceptable.[8] Repeated public engagement is seen as key to achieve a just transition as different groups will need different support to enable their green choices (PN 706).

Researchers debate the extent to which individuals should be responsible for making green choices as opposed to the regulatory and physical environment facilitating them, or whether markets, businesses and governments should be the main actors responsible for driving action. They highlight the need for different actions based on the context and the different ways individuals act as consumers, citizens, and within organisations and groups. Health, time, comfort and status can strongly influence individual decisions while finance and regulation are typically stronger motivations for organisations (PN 714)…(More)”

Call to make tech firms report data centre energy use as AI booms

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sandra Laville: “Tech companies should be required by law to report the energy and water consumption for their data centres, as the boom in AI risks causing irreparable damage to the environment, experts have said.

AI is growing at a rate unparalleled by other energy systems, bringing heightened environmental risk, a report by the National Engineering Policy Centre (NEPC) said.

The report calls for the UK government to make tech companies submit mandatory reports on their energy and water consumption and carbon emissions in order to set conditions in which data centres are designed to use fewer vital resources…(More)”.

Data Stewardship as Environmental Stewardship

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stefaan Verhulst and Sara Marcucci: “Why responsible data stewardship could help address today’s pressing environmental challenges resulting from artificial intelligence and other data-related technologies…

Even as the world grows increasingly reliant on data and artificial intelligence, concern over the environmental impact of data-related activities is increasing. Solutions remain elusive. The rise of generative AI, which rests on a foundation of massive data sets and computational power, risks exacerbating the problem.

In the below, we propose that responsible data stewardship offers a potential pathway to reducing the environmental footprint of data activities. By promoting practices such as data reuse, minimizing digital waste, and optimizing storage efficiency, data stewardship can help mitigate environmental harm. Additionally, data stewardship supports broader environmental objectives by facilitating better decision-making through transparent, accessible, and shared data. In the below, we suggest that advancing data stewardship as a cornerstone of environmental responsibility could provide a compelling approach to addressing the dual challenges of advancing digital technologies while safeguarding the environment…(More)”

Silencing Science Tracker

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “The Silencing Science Tracker is a joint initiative of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. It is intended to record reports of federal, state, and local government attempts to “silence science” since the November 2016 election.

We define “silencing science” to include any action that has the effect of restricting or prohibiting scientific research, education, or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information. We divide such actions into 7 categories as follows…(More)”

CategoryExamples
Government CensorshipChanging the content of websites and documents to suppress or distort scientific information.Making scientific data more difficult to find or access.Restricting public communication by scientists.
Self-CensorshipScientists voluntarily changing the content of websites and documents to suppress or distort scientific information, potentially in response to political pressure.
 We note that it is often difficult to determine whether self-censorship is occurring and/or its cause. We do not take any position on the accuracy of any individual report on self-censorship.
Budget CutsReducing funding for existing agency programs involving scientific research or scientific education.Cancelling existing grants for scientific research or scientific education.
 We do not include, in the “budget cuts” category, government decisions to refuse new grant applications or funding for new agency programs.
Personnel ChangesRemoving scientists from agency positions or creating a hostile work environment.Appointing unqualified individuals to, or failing to fill, scientific positions.Changing the composition of scientific advisory board or other bodies to remove qualified scientists or add only industry-favored members.Eliminating government bodies involved in scientific research or education or the dissemination of scientific information.
Research HindranceDestroying data needed to undertake scientific research.Preventing or restricting the publication of scientific research.Pressuring scientists to change research findings.
Bias and MisrepresentationEngaging in “cherry picking” or only disclosing certain scientific studies (e.g., that support a particular conclusion).Misrepresenting or mischaracterizing scientific studies.Disregarding scientific studies or advice in policy-making.
Interference with EducationChanging science education standards to prevent or limit the teaching of proven scientific theories.Requiring or encouraging the teaching of discredited or unproven scientific theories.Preventing the use of factually accurate textbooks and other instructional materials (e.g., on religious grounds).

Governance of Indigenous data in open earth systems science

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Lydia Jennings et al: “In the age of big data and open science, what processes are needed to follow open science protocols while upholding Indigenous Peoples’ rights? The Earth Data Relations Working Group (EDRWG), convened to address this question and envision a research landscape that acknowledges the legacy of extractive practices and embraces new norms across Earth science institutions and open science research. Using the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) as an example, the EDRWG recommends actions, applicable across all phases of the data lifecycle, that recognize the sovereign rights of Indigenous Peoples and support better research across all Earth Sciences…(More)”

Participatory seascape mapping: A community-based approach to ocean governance and marine conservation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Isabel James: “Despite the global proliferation of ocean governance frameworks that feature socioeconomic variables, the inclusion of community needs and local ecological knowledge remains underrepresented. Participatory mapping or Participatory GIS (PGIS) has emerged as a vital method to address this gap by engaging communities that are conventionally excluded from ocean planning and marine conservation. Originally developed for forest management and Indigenous land reclamation, the scholarship on PGIS remains predominantly focused on terrestrial landscapes. This review explores recent research that employs the method in the marine realm, detailing common methodologies, data types and applications in governance and conservation. A typology of ocean-centered PGIS studies was identified, comprising three main categories: fisheries, habitat classification and blue economy activities. Marine Protected Area (MPA) design and conflict management are the most prevalent conservation applications of PGIS. Case studies also demonstrate the method’s effectiveness in identifying critical marine habitats such as fish spawning grounds and monitoring endangered megafauna. Participatory mapping shows particular promise in resource and data limited contexts due to its ability to generate large quantities of relatively reliable, quick and low-cost data. Validation steps, including satellite imagery and ground-truthing, suggest encouraging accuracy of PGIS data, despite potential limitations related to human error and spatial resolution. This review concludes that participatory mapping not only enriches scientific research but also fosters trust and cooperation among stakeholders, ultimately contributing to more resilient and equitable ocean governance…(More)”.

Announcing SPARROW: A Breakthrough AI Tool to Measure and Protect Earth’s Biodiversity in the Most Remote Places

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Juan Lavista Ferres: “The biodiversity of our planet is rapidly declining. We’ve likely reached a tipping point where it is crucial to use every tool at our disposal to help preserve what remains. That’s why I am pleased to announce SPARROW—Solar-Powered Acoustic and Remote Recording Observation Watch, developed by Microsoft’s AI for Good Lab. SPARROW is an AI-powered edge computing solution designed to operate autonomously in the most remote corners of the planet. Solar-powered and equipped with advanced sensors, it collects biodiversity data—from camera traps, acoustic monitors, and other environmental detectors—that are processed using our most advanced PyTorch-based wildlife AI models on low-energy edge GPUs. The resulting critical information is then transmitted via low-Earth orbit satellites directly to the cloud, allowing researchers to access fresh, actionable insights in real time, no matter where they are. 

Think of SPARROW as a network of Earth-bound satellites, quietly observing and reporting on the health of our ecosystems without disrupting them. By leveraging solar energy, these devices can run for a long time, minimizing their footprint and any potential harm to the environment…(More)”.

Scientists Scramble to Save Climate Data from Trump—Again

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Chelsea Harvey: “Eight years ago, as the Trump administration was getting ready to take office for the first time, mathematician John Baez was making his own preparations.

Together with a small group of friends and colleagues, he was arranging to download large quantities of public climate data from federal websites in order to safely store them away. Then-President-elect Donald Trump had repeatedly denied the basic science of climate change and had begun nominating climate skeptics for cabinet posts. Baez, a professor at the University of California, Riverside, was worried the information — everything from satellite data on global temperatures to ocean measurements of sea-level rise — might soon be destroyed.

His effort, known as the Azimuth Climate Data Backup Project, archived at least 30 terabytes of federal climate data by the end of 2017.

In the end, it was an overprecaution.

The first Trump administration altered or deleted numerous federal web pages containing public-facing climate information, according to monitoring efforts by the nonprofit Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI), which tracks changes on federal websites. But federal databases, containing vast stores of globally valuable climate information, remained largely intact through the end of Trump’s first term.

Yet as Trump prepares to take office again, scientists are growing more worried.

Federal datasets may be in bigger trouble this time than they were under the first Trump administration, they say. And they’re preparing to begin their archiving efforts anew.

“This time around we expect them to be much more strategic,” said Gretchen Gehrke, EDGI’s website monitoring program lead. “My guess is that they’ve learned their lessons.”

The Trump transition team didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Like Baez’s Azimuth project, EDGI was born in 2016 in response to Trump’s first election. They weren’t the only ones…(More)”.

Flood data platform governance: Identifying the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Mahardika Fadmastuti, David Nowak, and Joep Crompvoets: “Data platform governance concept focuses on what decision must be made in order to reach the data platform mission and who makes that decision. The current study of the data platform governance framework is applied for the general platform ecosystem that values managing data as an organizational asset. However, flood data platforms are essential tools for enhancing the governance of flood risks and data platform governance in flood platforms is understudied. By adopting a data governance domains framework, this paper identifies the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences in public value(s) of flood data platforms. Empirically, we analyze 2 cases of flood data platforms to contrast the differences. Utilizing a qualitative approach, we combined web-observations and interviews to collect the data. Regardless of its approach, integrating flood data platform technologies into government authorities’ routines requires organizational commitment that drives value creation. The key differences between these approaches lies in the way the government sectors see this flood data platform technology. Empirically, our case study shows that the technological approach values improving capabilities and performances of the public authority while the socio-technical approach focuses more importantly providing engagement value with the public users. We further explore the differences of these approaches by analyzing each component of decision domains in the data governance framework…(More)”