̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - policy

Opinion: AI can unlock productivity in public services

lw355 — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 07:00:19 +0000

AI applications have tremendous potential for improving productivity – saving time and money and improving quality of service. Here's what's required to make this work in the public sector, says Diane Coyle.

Major new policy school at Cambridge set to advance ‘good growth’

fpjl2 — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 09:18:50 +0000

The Bennett School of Public Policy opens this autumn, and is already leading work on two of the most pressing policy problems of our time: implementing AI and revitalising post-industrial regions.

UK needs AI legislation to create trust so companies can ‘plug AI into British economy’

fpjl2 — Mon, 16 Oct 2023 06:20:05 +0000

̽��ֱ��British government should offer tax breaks for businesses developing AI-powered products and services, or applying AI to their existing operations, to 'unlock the UK’s potential for augmented productivity', according to a new ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge report.

Researchers argue that the UK currently lacks the computing capacity and capital required to build 'generative' machine learning models fast enough to compete with US companies such as Google, Microsoft or Open AI.

Instead, they call for a UK focus on leveraging these new AI systems for real-world applications – such as developing new diagnostic products and addressing the shortage of software engineers – which could provide a major boost to the British economy.

However, the researchers caution that without new legislation to ensure the UK has solid legal and ethical AI regulation, such plans could falter. British industries and the public may struggle to trust emerging AI platforms such as ChatGPT enough to invest time and money into skilling up.

̽��ֱ��policy report is a collaboration between Cambridge’s Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, Bennett Institute for Public Policy, and ai@cam: the ̽��ֱ��’s flagship initiative on artificial intelligence.

“Generative AI will change the nature of how things are produced, just as what occurred with factory assembly lines in the 1910s or globalised supply chains at the turn of the millennium,” said Dame Diane Coyle, Bennett Professor of Public Policy. “ ̽��ֱ��UK can become a global leader in actually plugging these AI technologies into the economy.”

Prof Gina Neff, Executive Director of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, said: “A new Bill that fosters confidence in AI by legislating for data protection, intellectual property and product safety is vital groundwork for using this technology to increase UK productivity.”

Generative AI uses algorithms trained on giant datasets to output original high-quality text, images, audio, or video at ferocious speed and scale. ̽��ֱ��text-based ChatGPT dominated headlines this year. Other examples include Midjourney, which can conjure imagery in any different style in seconds.

Networked grids – or clusters – of computing hardware called Graphics Processing Units (GPU) are required to handle the vast quantities of data that hone these machine-learning models. For example, ChatGPT is estimated to cost $40 million a month in computing alone. In the spring of this year, the UK chancellor announced £100 million for a “Frontier AI Taskforce” to scope out the creation of home-grown AI to rival the likes of Google Bard.

However, the report points out that the supercomputer announced by the UK chancellor is unlikely to be online until 2026, while none of the big three US tech companies – Amazon, Microsoft or Google – have GPU clusters in the UK.

“ ̽��ֱ��UK has no companies big enough to invest meaningfully in foundation model development,” said report co-author Sam Gilbert. “State spending on technology is modest compared to China and the US, as we have seen in the UK chip industry.”

As such, the UK should use its strengths in fin-tech, cybersecurity and health-tech to build software – the apps, tools and interfaces – that harnesses AI for everyday use, says the report.

“Generative AI has been shown to speed up coding by some 55%, which could help with the UK’s chronic developer shortage,” said Gilbert. “In fact, this type of AI can even help non-programmers to build sophisticated software.”

Moreover, the UK has world-class research universities that could drive progress in tackling AI stumbling blocks: from the cooling of data centres to the detection of AI-generated misinformation.

At the moment, however, UK organisations lack incentives to comply with responsible AI. “ ̽��ֱ��UK’s current approach to regulating generative AI is based on a set of vague and voluntary principles that nod at security and transparency,” said report co-author Dr Ann Kristin Glenster.

“ ̽��ֱ��UK will only be able to realise the economic benefits of AI if the technology can be trusted, and that can only be ensured through meaningful legislation and regulation.”

Along with new AI laws, the report suggests a series of tax incentives, such as an enhanced Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme, to increase the supply of capital to AI start-ups, as well as tax credits for all businesses including generative AI in their operations. Challenge prizes could be launched to identify bottom-up uses of generative AI from within organisations.

Legislating for AI safety and transparency will allow British industry and education to put resources into AI development with confidence, argue researchers.

̽��ֱ��UK can become a global leader in actually plugging these AI technologies into the economy

Diane Coyle

Getty/BlackJack3D

Data Tunnel

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Weak policies and political ideologies risk jeopardising plans to tackle health and climate change, says Cambridge expert

cjb250 — Mon, 19 Jun 2023 23:01:02 +0000

Writing in the journal Science and Public Policy, Professor Marteau argues that this ‘evidence-neglect’ is a result of incentive structures that encourage politicians to set ambitious policy goals while simultaneously disincentivising them from implementing the policies needed to achieve them, and of political ideologies and interests that conflict with effective policies.

Two changes could mitigate these factors, she writes: engaging citizens more in policy-making so their interests dominate; and increasing the accountability of politicians through legally binding systems for all stages of policy-making.

Recent UK governments have set ambitious goals to improve the nation’s health and tackle climate change. These include halving childhood obesity by 2030, eradicating smoking by 2030, narrowing the gap in healthy life expectancy by 2030, and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

But, says Professor Marteau, Director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit at Cambridge, “None of these ambitions is on course. Of course, scientific evidence is just one of many sources of information for policymakers to consider, but neglecting evidence is a sure-fire route to unsuccessful policymaking.”

According to predictions, childhood obesity is on track to double, not halve, by 2030. Smoking eradication is on track sometime after 2050, not by 2030. By 2030, the gap in healthy life expectancy between local areas where it is highest and lowest will have narrowed, but by 2035 is set to rise by five years. And the UK Sixth Carbon Budget – a key target towards achieving net zero carbon emissions – is likely to be missed by “a huge margin”.

Achieving each of these ambitions requires sustained changes in several sets of behaviour across all socio-economic groups including what we eat, drink, whether we smoke, and how we travel. A wealth of research demonstrates that achieving such change is difficult, requiring many interventions that change the environments or systems that too readily cue, reinforce and maintain unhealthier and unsustainable behaviours.

“There are many possible reasons why these policy ambitions are so far off-track, but chief among them is the neglect of evidence, particularly around achieving sustained changes in behaviour across populations,” said Professor Marteau.

“Put simply, these failures are baked-in, given the policies designed to achieve these ambitions are based on interventions that cannot achieve the change required.”

Part of the problem, she says, lies in the incentive structures for politicians, which favour setting ambitious policy goals whether as part of achieving election promises, attracting positive publicity or both. But they also discourage the policies needed to achieve them.

“Fear of electoral damage plays a role here. Take taxes on tobacco, alcohol, junk food and carbon emissions: these are among the most effective interventions for improving health and the climate, but they are unpopular with the public and so politicians are unwilling to adopt them.”

Such policies may not just be unpopular with the public – they may also run counter to political interests and ideologies. Neoliberalism, for example, emphasises a small role for governments in the economy and public policy more generally, and a larger role for individuals to be personally responsible for behaving in ways to achieve health, wealth and happiness. Such ideologies often portray attempts by the government to intervene as ‘Nanny Statism’.

Certain industries, too, focus on personal responsibility to discourage politicians from adopting effective policies that conflict with their industries’ interests, such as those aimed at reducing consumption of fossil fuels, tobacco, alcohol, meat and junk food. These industries may cast doubt on the effectiveness of policies that would reduce their sales, as well as lobbying governments to persuade them of the business case for the status quo.

Professor Marteau added: “There are no quick or single fixes to overcoming these problems, but there are two changes which could help: engaging citizens more in priority setting and policy design, and increasing the accountability of politicians through introducing legally-binding systems for reporting progress on policy ambitions.”

There are a number of options available to policymakers when it comes to engaging citizens, including: surveys, focus groups, town hall meetings and citizen assemblies, as well as working with civil society organisations. This approach has the potential to reduce the political costs of unpopular policies by exposing citizens to evidence for the effectiveness of policies, which – across many studies – has been shown to increase policy support. Policies designed with citizen engagement also attract more public support, such policies being seen as fairer and more successful as a result.

Introducing legally binding systems for reporting policies and progress on policy ambitions, with plans to get back on track if progress is off course, could be a powerful way to decrease the neglect of evidence which is central to policy success.

An example of this is the UK government’s recent Levelling Up strategy paper, which included plans to introduce a statutory obligation for government to report annually on progress towards meeting the Levelling Up missions. Alongside these plans, it published a set of metrics against which to measure progress against the missions and evaluate the success of the strategy.

“Although these requirements are by no means perfect, the legislation as drafted will at least allow parliament significantly more scrutiny of progress towards a government ambition than is often the case.”

Failure to take into account the evidence, says Professor Marteau, risks undermining the government’s attempts to take action.

“Laudable policy ambitions to improve a nation’s health and protect life on the planet will remain unfulfilled ambitions unless and until evidence is given a more central role in the policy-making process.”

Reference
Marteau, TM. Evidence-neglect: addressing a barrier to UK health and climate policy ambitions. Science and Public Policy; 20 June 2023; DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scad021

Efforts to tackle major issues facing the UK, including the nation’s health and climate change, are being hampered because politicians often ignore the existing evidence when setting policies, according to Dame Theresa Marteau, a public health expert at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Neglecting evidence is a sure-fire route to unsuccessful policymaking

Theresa Marteau

DesignOil (Pixabay)

Burger and fries

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

Limited resources leave school leaders with few options to manage poor behaviour

tdk25 — Wed, 07 Jun 2023 15:22:36 +0000

̽��ֱ��findings are from a qualitative study which investigated why more school leaders are not exploring alternative approaches to behaviour management. It argues that resource limitations and other concerns have left teachers feeling trapped within the prevailing system of mounting punishments. Under this, more than a thousand students are excluded, and almost 150,000 suspended, every year.

Educators interviewed for the study often acknowledged the potential benefits of alternative methods, but believed they had little choice but to follow the established orthodoxy. ̽��ֱ��most common reasons included cost, resource constraints, parental perception, and lack of time.

Most schools in England follow a 'behaviourist' approach to student discipline, reinforcing positive behaviour and implementing escalating sanctions for repeated misconduct. Initially, students may receive a verbal warning for poor behaviour, followed by mid-level punishments like detention. Those who persist eventually face suspension and ultimately may be excluded from mainstream education.

̽��ֱ��approach seems effective with many students, but there are concerns that it is still failing a significant minority. Government data have, for many years, consistently shown that persistent, disruptive behaviour is the main reason for suspensions or exclusions from school. ̽��ֱ��latest available figures suggest that about 1,500 students are excluded, and 148,000 suspended, each year for this reason.

̽��ֱ��study was conducted by Dr Laura Oxley, now at the Faculty of Education, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, drawing on research she undertook while at the ̽��ֱ�� of York. ̽��ֱ��newly-published element documents very in-depth interviews with a small group of 14 school leaders in England using a method called Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. This was just part of the full study, which also surveyed 84 behaviour referral units in England and involved interviews with teachers in other education systems with different approaches to discipline.

Given the scale of the research, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. They do, however, highlight a possible cycle shaping behaviour management policy in England. Specifically, political and resource constraints limit schools’ capacity to experiment with alternative approaches, resulting in scarce evidence for their efficacy. This reinforces the view that the existing model is the only option.

Prior to her academic career Oxley worked with children who were at risk of exclusion from school, their families, and senior school leaders to support schools to provide appropriate educational provision for children who exhibited persistent misconduct. She held roles as an Exclusions and Reintegration Officer in East Yorkshire, and as an Education Inclusion Officer in Cambridgeshire.

“This is not a call to scrap the existing system, but to consider ways to enhance it,” she said. “For significant numbers of children, the current approach isn’t working.”

“Fundamentally, if a child persists with the same behaviour despite multiple punishments, it’s unlikely that they don’t comprehend the consequences. In those situations, instead of escalating the punishment, we should be asking why we aren’t trying something else? Unfortunately, even if school leaders have the motivation to try a different approach, they often feel that they have little choice. This means the same, standardised approach often prevails, even though it doesn’t suit every child.”

Widely-cited alternative behaviour management techniques include ‘restorative practice’ (RP) and ‘collaborative and proactive solutions’ (CPS). RP focuses on rebuilding positive relationships between students, or students and teachers, after breakdowns occur. CPS involves identifying the triggers behind persistent misbehaviour and addressing them collaboratively.

While neither method suits every situation, trials have yielded encouraging results. A 2019 study, for example, found that RP improved behaviour and reduced bullying. Although these approaches are already used by some schools in England, neither is currently used widely.

In Oxley’s study, school leaders identified cost, time and resource constraints as barriers to these alternatives, as they tend to be labour-intensive and require a thorough culture change. Most feared that they would place an intolerable extra burden on already overstretched staff. Issuing sanctions was seen as more efficient. Even providing space for private discussions with challenging students was sometimes considered unfeasible. One teacher explained: “We don’t have the staffing or capabilities for that”.

Some school leaders were concerned that teachers might perceive restorative approaches as a challenge to their authority in the classroom. There is evidence that training can change teachers' perspectives on handling challenging students, fostering a deeper understanding of the psychological context. Again, however, limited time and resources pose barriers to this, the study suggests.

Participants also expressed unease about parental reactions to alternative approaches. One school leader told Oxley: “A lot of pupils would tell you that it’s harder to do a restorative meeting than it is to miss your break time. It’s more difficult to get the message across to parents.” Some cited cases where heads had been “held to ransom” by parents demanding the exclusion of so-called “problem” pupils.

Oxley suggests these pressures have fostered a culture of risk aversion in schools, impeding potential reforms. “We need to give teachers and parents opportunities to understand the alternatives available,” she said. “ ̽��ֱ��fact that researchers know methods like RP could work in situations where the current approach is not promoting behaviour change is irrelevant if teachers don’t share that confidence.”

̽��ֱ��study highlights insufficient promotion of alternative methods in current Government guidance, which prioritises the sanctions-based approach. It emphasises, however, that providing adequate funding and time to enhance teachers’ and parents’ understanding of collaborative and restorative behaviour management techniques is essential to cultivating a “desire for change”.

“At the moment, alternative approaches are often dismissed as unrealistic,” Oxley said. “This stems from a lack of large-scale evidence due to limited opportunities to explore them in schools. Education researchers must address that by studying real experiences in schools, moving beyond limited trials. This will empower more school leaders to see restorative practice and other methods as valuable and viable, generating momentum for change.”

̽��ֱ��findings are reported in the Psychology of Education Review.

School leaders in England feel compelled to continue using a system of escalating punitive measures to manage student behaviour, even though they recognise it fails some pupils, new research suggests.

This is not a call to scrap the existing system, but to consider ways to enhance it

Laura Oxley

Getty images

Boy in school corridor

Yes

Competition with China a ‘driving force’ for clean energy funding in the 21st century

fpjl2 — Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:46:03 +0000

̽��ֱ��first major study of driving forces behind government funding of energy RD&D – and the public institutions generating it – over the 21st century shows that competition created by China’s rise as a technology superpower led to significant increases in clean energy investment.

̽��ֱ��new study, led by ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and ̽��ֱ�� of California, Berkeley, and published in the journal Nature Energy, also finds that cooperation commitments at a UN climate conference were not just empty words, and did boost 'cleantech' innovation, albeit a long way off levels required to hit net zero or prevent two-degree warming.

̽��ֱ��research covers eight major economies – Germany, France, US, UK, Korea, India, China and Japan – in the years between 2000 and 2018, and finds that total energy funding among seven of these (excluding India) grew from $10.9 billion to $20.1 billion, an 84% increase.

̽��ֱ��share of RD&D (research, development and demonstration) funding for clean technologies – from solar and wind to efficient energy storage – across these seven economies went from 46% to 63% during the first 18 years of this century.

However, it came at the expense of nuclear energy investment, which fell from 42% to 24%, while fossil fuel funding remained 'sticky' and relatively unchanged – propped up by huge increases in fossil fuel RD&D spending from China (over $1.5 billion from 2001 to 2018).

“Levels of investment in clean energy have yet to come close to achieving meaningful global decarbonisation,” said Prof Laura Diaz Anadon from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, a corresponding author on the study.

“Annual government funding for energy RD&D needed to have at least doubled between 2010 and 2020 to better enable future emissions cuts in line with the two-degree Celsius goal,” Anadon said.

Prof Jonas Meckling, study first author from the ̽��ֱ�� of California, Berkeley, said: “Our research reveals the drivers of clean energy investment that had most impact in the 21st century. A mix of cooperation and competition between nations, and a strategic shift towards commercialisation, led to advances that policymakers must build upon.”

Many consider high oil prices a key incentive for government spending on energy innovation as alternatives are sought, such as in the 1970s. Yet the study shows clean energy RD&D continued to grow despite declining oil costs after 2008, leading researchers to assess other possible 'drivers' of cleantech investment this century.

̽��ֱ��research team conducted their analysis by creating two datasets. One tracked RD&D funding from China, India and the member countries of the International Energy Agency.

̽��ֱ��other inventoried 57 public institutions working on energy innovation across eight major economies. These include agencies that fund energy tech such as ARPA-E in the US, the Carbon Trust in the UK, and India’s National Institute of Solar Energy.

̽��ֱ��study found intensifying competition in clean energy markets created a 'cumulative' investment boost across major economies – primarily driven by China, which grew cleantech RD&D spending at double-digit rates every year (bar one) between 2003 and 2014.

As original solar and wind industries in the US and Europe fought to keep up, an analysis of government reports conducted for the study shows RD&D pushes in major economies were increasingly justified by referencing competitive threats from China. This included US investments post-2008 crash, Germany’s push into electric vehicles, and the EU Green Deal.

̽��ֱ��study pinpoints 2014 as the year China became a major player in cleantech across a range of areas, accelerating a gradual shift towards clean energy commercialisation and economic strategy that had already begun in other countries.

For example, after 2014, public RD&D institutions across the eight economies with a stated goal of “competitiveness and economic growth” increased by 14 percentage points.

In addition, some 39% of RD&D institutions ran as government-business partnerships before 2014, but increased focus on commercialisation with the rise of China saw this jump to 63% of institutions established or repurposed from 2015 onwards.

“Competition with China helped grow some clean technologies, but stymied others,” said Anadon. “Research and development for onshore wind increased in major economics when Chinese firms entered the market. However, cleantech that was easily shippable, such as solar PV, suffered from intense Chinese investment that eliminated international competitors.”

“Competition is only half the battle, we also need global cooperation,” she said.

̽��ֱ��study shows the “Mission Innovation” – a global initiative to boost cleantech development announced at COP21 in 2015 by President Obama, and backed by 20 nations including China and India – failed to double clean energy RD&D spending by 2020, a stated aim.

However, it did lead to significant increases in RD&D for new clean and nuclear energy in the eight major economies for at least three years following launch, with government documents explicitly referencing Mission Innovation as the rationale for expanding clean energy funding.

̽��ֱ��team also investigated how this century’s crises influenced RD&D. Stimulus packages following the 2008 financial crash and COVID-19 pandemic did little for new clean energy efforts, instead typically boosting RD&D funding for “incumbent” energy: fossil (including carbon capture and storage) and nuclear.

“Unlike the financial crash and pandemic, Russia’s war on Ukraine has caused an international crisis with energy at its core,” Anadon added. “This could lead to a global shift in government policies that harness both competition and cooperation to boost clean energy investment, such as a trade club for climate goods.”

Analysis of energy RD&D investment in major economies also found that commitments at COP21 yielded some positives. Ultimately, however, trends over this century are not consistent with the ‘cleantech’ funding levels needed to meet climate goals, say researchers.

Competition is only half the battle, we also need global cooperation

Laura Diaz Anadon

Darmau Lee

Solar panels in Dunhuang, Gansu, China

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Opinion: Russian gas will fund Putin’s war

sc604 — Tue, 08 Mar 2022 14:02:09 +0000

Would Europe cutting off Russian oil and gas imports be enough to convince Putin to stop the war on Ukraine? According to Dr Chi Kong Chyong from the Energy Policy Research Group at Cambridge Judge Business School, the global nature of energy markets means that stopping the flow of Russian oil and gas into Europe may not be the ‘hammer blow’ that Western countries are looking for.

Climate Exp0 – International climate conference being hosted by UK universities ahead of COP26

sc604 — Mon, 17 May 2021 09:29:04 +0000

This week, more than 500 researchers from over 80 UK and Italian Universities will be joining colleagues from 40 countries to contribute to Climate Exp0. Online, free, and open to all, it’s an opportunity to connect policy, academic and student audiences across the globe, and harness the power of virtual collaboration to help advance a resilient, zero-carbon world. It will feature a range of speakers – from policymakers and academics, to practitioners and students.

Organised by the COP26 Universities Network, the conference aims to raise ambition for tangible outcomes from the UN COP26 Climate Change Conference, jointly hosted by the UK and Italy in Glasgow this November.

At a critical point in the COP26 pre-meetings and negotiations – six months prior to the conference itself – Climate Exp0 will showcase the latest thinking and most relevant UK and international research around five key themes: Adaptation and Resilience; Finance; Green Recovery; Mitigation Solutions and Nature-based Solutions.

Dr Emily Shuckburgh, Chair of the COP26 Universities Network and Director of Cambridge Zero, said: “This is a vital moment for the world. As we look to emerge from the pandemic and build a more resilient, sustainable future, we must harness the ideas and innovations that will support a cleaner and greener future. Climate Exp0 is an exhibition of hope and inspiration to encourage the ambitious global climate action that is required.”

Highlights of this week’s conference include:

Monday
Opening of conference
̽��ֱ��Rt Hon Alok Sharma, President of COP26 and Minister Roberto Cingolani, Minister for Ecological Transition, Italy
Climate risk. Opening session setting out the threat we face (09:30 – 10:30).
Dr Emily Shuckburgh Cambridge ̽��ֱ��; Albert Klein Tank, MET Office and Tim Benton, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House.

Tuesday
Nature-based solutions and the opportunities they offer (09:00 – 09:30)
Zac Goldsmith, Minister of State for Pacific and the Environment and Emma Howard Boyd, Chair of the Environment Agency, UK

Wednesday
Policies for delivering COP26 mitigation objectives (16:30 – 17:15)
Manuel Pulgar Vidal, Global Head of Climate and Energy at WWF, Former Ministry of Environment of Peru, COP20 President, Jim Watson, Professor of Energy Policy, ̽��ֱ�� College London (UCL) Institute for Sustainable Resources and Jacob Werksman, Principal Advisor, DG-CLIMA, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

Thursday
Adaptation and resilience challenges in the COP26 meeting (09:30 – 10:30)
Minister Maria Cristina Messa, Ministry of ̽��ֱ�� and Research and ̽��ֱ��Rt Hon Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP, Minister of State for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, UK

Friday
Ask a Climate Change expert: How can we save our planet? (17:15 – 18:30)
Tamsin Edwards, Reader in Climate Change, Kings College London, Lord Deben, Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change and Brighton Kaoma, Global Director of UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network-Youth Initiative.

̽��ֱ��conference is a partnership with ‘Rete delle Universita’ per lo sviluppo Sostenibile (Italian ̽��ֱ�� Network for Sustainable Development), sponsored by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), and with support from UN Climate Change Conference UK 2021 in Partnership with Italy and Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� Press.

Weeklong conference brings together leading scientists, government ministers and experts from around the world to set the agenda ahead of the United Nations Climate Change conference.

As we look to emerge from the pandemic and build a more resilient, sustainable future, we must harness the ideas and innovations that will support a cleaner and greener future

Emily Shuckburgh

Dr Emily Shuckburgh Exp0 2021

National Renewable Energy Lab

Ivanpah Solar Project

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical