The term “climate emergency” represents a new phase in climate change framing that many hope will invigorate more climate action. Yet there has been relatively little discussion of how the new emergency framing might shape broader governance and policy. In this advanced review, we critically review and synthesize existing literature on crisis and emergency to inform our understanding of how this new shift might affect governance and policy. Specifically, we explore the literature on crisis governance and policy to argue that there is no simple answer to whether the “climate emergency” framing will be supportive of climate governance and policy; rather, more work needs to be done to understand how different political actors respond according to their perceptions, interests and values. To assist this endeavor, we develop a typology of four policy pathways, ranging from “no emergency,” to “no emergency, but recognize risk,” “emergency as a threat” and “emergency as an opportunity.” We highlight the need to consider the effects of multiple and overlapping emergency frames, using the example of the intersection of climate change and COVID-19. Finally, we suggest new interdisciplinary research directions for critically analyzing and refining this new phase of climate change framing.

中文翻译：

---

风险？危机？紧急情况？新的气候紧急情况框架对治理和政策的影响

“气候紧急情况”一词代表了气候变化框架的一个新阶段，许多人希望它能激发更多的气候行动。然而，关于新的紧急情况框架如何影响更广泛的治理和政策的讨论相对较少。在这篇高级评论中，我们批判性地审查并综合了关于危机和紧急情况的现有文献，以告知我们对这种新转变可能如何影响治理和政策的理解。具体而言，我们探索了关于危机治理和政策的文献，以论证“气候紧急情况”框架是否会支持气候治理和政策，没有简单的答案；相反，需要做更多的工作来了解不同的政治行为者如何根据他们的看法、利益和价值观做出反应。为了协助这项工作，我们制定了四种政策路径的类型，从“没有紧急情况”到“没有紧急情况，但要认识到风险”、“紧急情况是威胁”和“紧急情况是机遇”。我们以气候变化和 COVID-19 的交叉为例，强调需要考虑多个重叠的紧急框架的影响。最后，我们提出了新的跨学科研究方向，以批判性地分析和完善气候变化框架的这一新阶段。