Climate Change Insights

🌍 Ten Years After Paris: is the Climate Crisis a Disinformation Crisis? In 2015, the world made a historic promise: to keep global warming well below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. We committed to major emission cuts by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. The Paris Agreement marked a new era of global climate cooperation. But ten years on, we're still struggling with cooperation while the World Meteorological Organization tells us that the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C over a 12-month period (Feb 2023–Jan 2024) for the first time. Why? 🔍 A groundbreaking new study, led by 14 researchers for the International Panel on the Information Environment, reviewed 300 studies from 2015–2025. The findings are alarming: powerful interests – fossil fuel companies, populist parties, even some governments – are systematically spreading misleading narratives to delay climate action. 🧠 Misinformation isn't just about denying climate change. It’s now about strategic skepticism – minimizing the threat, casting doubt on science-based solutions, and greenwashing unsustainable practices. 📺 This disinformation flows through social media, news outlets, corporate reports, and even policy briefings. It targets all of us – but especially policymakers, where it can shape laws and delay critical decisions. 💡 So what can we do? 1️⃣ Legislate for transparency and integrity in climate communication. 2️⃣ Hold greenwashers accountable through legal action. 3️⃣ Build global coalitions of civil society, science, and public institutions. 4️⃣ Invest in climate and media literacy for both citizens and leaders. 5️⃣ Amplify voices from underrepresented regions – like Africa – where more research is urgently needed. We must protect not only the planet’s climate, but the integrity of climate information. 🔗 Read more on how disinformation is undermining climate progress – and what we can do about it: https://lnkd.in/eDN9hKAJ 🕰️ The window is small. But with truth, science, and collective action, we can still turn the tide.

🌍 We Can’t Afford to Get Climate Policy Wrong—A Look at the Data Behind What Really Works 🌍 In the race against time to combat climate change, bold promises are everywhere. But here’s the critical question: Are the policies being implemented actually reducing emissions at the scale we need? A groundbreaking study published in Science, cuts through the noise and delivers the insights we desperately need. Evaluating 1,500 climate policies from around the world, the research identifies the 63 most effective ones—policies that have delivered tangible, significant reductions in emissions. What’s striking is that the most successful strategies often involve combinations of policies, rather than single initiatives. Think of it as the ultimate teamwork: when policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and efficiency standards are combined thoughtfully, the impact is far greater than any one policy could achieve on its own. It’s a powerful reminder that for climate solutions the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the study’s use of counterfactual emissions pathways is a game changer. By showing what would have happened without these policies, it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of their effectiveness. This is exactly the kind of rigorous evaluation we need to ensure that every policy counts, especially when we’re working against the clock. If we’re serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets, we need to focus on what works—and this research offers a clear roadmap. Let’s champion policies that have proven to make a difference, because we don’t have time to waste on anything less. 🔗 Full study in the comments #ClimateAction #Sustainability #PolicyEffectiveness #ParisAgreement #NetZero #ClimateScience

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 A new report (👉https://lnkd.in/eMsCKQuh) exposes a fundamental gap between what climate scientists expect and what economic models predict. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺: 68 climate scientists from 12 countries were surveyed about economic damage estimates. Their insights differ radically from standard models: 🔴 At 3°C warming, experts estimate median GDP damage at ~35%. The Nordhaus DICE model predicts only ~3% 🔴 36% of scientists place the "collapse threshold" 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸 4°C, while many scenarios model up to 4°C and beyond 🔴 250 million people displaced by climate disasters in the past decade, impacts barely visible in GDP figures 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴: We focus on global averages, but people experience 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘴: the 2021 Texas storm caused $195 billion damage while barely registering in global temperature statistics. GDP often 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 after disasters (reconstruction spending) while real wealth declines – the "disaster industrial complex" accounts for 1/3 of US economic activity at 1.4°C warming Models assume smooth damage curves but ignore tipping points, cascades, and system failures 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀: This gap determines how pension funds assess risks and how central banks conduct stress tests. The NGFS recently raised damage estimates from 7-14% to 30% GDP loss at 3°C, but climate scientists say even this underestimates. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲: Research ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/eVsBapbT) shows "disciplinary asymmetries": economists seek optimization within existing systems; natural scientists see limits and tipping points. Where economists use GDP as proxy, scientists see missed impacts on health, ecosystems, and inequality. As a consequence, environmental scientist see degrowth as an option, while economist favour market based solutions 👇 . 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄: The report calls for "recalibration toward precaution, robustness, and transparency": ✓ Report ranges instead of point estimates ✓ Acknowledge where models fail (especially above 2-3°C) ✓ Integrate metrics beyond GDP: mortality, inequality, ecosystem degradation ✓ Model cascades and second-order effects The crucial insight: climate change introduces risks exceeding existing economic frameworks. The response is not waiting for perfect models, but recognizing that avoiding irreversible outcomes is cheaper than pricing them after the fact. For long-term investors: climate risk cannot be fully diversified away. It's a systemic risk requiring fundamentally different strategies. #climaterisk #climateeconomics #systemchange #financialrisk #sustainablefinance

Climate Change Risk Assessments 🌎 Climate-related financial disclosure requirements are expanding across jurisdictions, increasing expectations for companies to assess and report on climate-related risks and opportunities. A structured climate change risk assessment (CCRA) is central to meeting these evolving regulatory demands. CCRAs evaluate both physical risks—such as extreme weather events, water stress, and sea level rise—and transition risks, including policy changes, carbon pricing, and shifts in market or technology landscapes. They also help identify potential opportunities linked to decarbonization, energy efficiency, and new revenue models. Scenario analysis is a core component. It enables companies to test strategic resilience under divergent climate pathways, including high-emissions futures and low-emissions transitions aligned with the Paris Agreement. Most regulatory frameworks now require both perspectives. Benefits of a robust CCRA include improved risk management, reduced exposure to disruptions, and strengthened alignment with investor expectations. Insights from these assessments can be embedded into enterprise risk systems, capital planning, and strategic roadmaps. Key challenges include short-term thinking in risk registers, limited access to forward-looking climate data, and misalignment between climate risk analysis and existing sustainability goals. These gaps can reduce the effectiveness of disclosures and slow organizational response. Recommended approaches include leveraging established scenarios (e.g. IPCC, IEA), integrating outputs into ERM systems, using frameworks like ISSB and TCFD for structure, and applying competitive benchmarking to validate assumptions. Cross-functional engagement improves practical relevance. As regulatory standards converge, CCRAs are becoming a baseline expectation. Those who develop structured, forward-looking assessments will be better positioned to adapt business models, manage uncertainty, and align with capital markets under increasing climate scrutiny. Source: Ramboll #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #risk

🔥 Climate risks are no longer abstract—they’re disrupting businesses, communities, and economies right now. The World Economic Forum’s 2024 report, "The Cost of Inaction: A CEO Guide to Navigating Climate Risk", delivers a sobering message: ignoring climate risks isn’t just irresponsible—it’s economically devastating. 🌡️ Key insights from the report: 💥 Climate-related disasters have caused $3.6 trillion in damages since 2000, exposing critical vulnerabilities in supply chains and infrastructure. 📉 Physical risks could put 5-25% of EBITDA at risk for some sectors by 2050 under a 3°C warming trajectory. 💸 Transition risks, like carbon pricing and changing regulations, could impact 50% of EBITDA in energy-intensive industries by 2030. 🌱 Every $1 invested in climate adaptation yields $2-$19 in avoided costs, while green markets are projected to grow from $5 trillion in 2024 to $14 trillion by 2030. 💡 My reflections: 🔄 Resilience isn’t enough anymore. Too often, we focus on simply "weathering the storm" of climate risk. But true leadership is about rebuilding something better—rethinking markets, redesigning business models, and creating solutions that lead entire industries forward. 🌍 Supply chain fragility is the Achilles’ heel of the global economy. A single extreme weather event can cascade across operations, grinding everything to a halt. Climate-resilient supply chains can’t just be about survival—they must be radically adaptive, decentralized, and built to thrive under disruption. 📊 Climate risk is fundamentally redefining the concept of value. Businesses stuck chasing quarterly earnings are missing the bigger picture. In a world of rising costs and irreversible climate impacts, long-term value will belong to those who embed sustainability, resilience, and equity into their strategies. The time for cautious, incremental steps has passed. How are we using this moment to transform the way we work, innovate, and lead? #ClimateAction #Sustainability #Resilience #Leadership #Innovation

In a global economy, emissions don’t stop at borders – they move with the goods we trade. Almost every major economy is both an exporter and an importer of emissions. Around a quarter of global emissions are embedded in traded goods, and the G20 accounts for over 80% of these flows. This week at COP30 Brazil, the Climate Club released "Industry on the Road to 2050". My contribution with my colleagues Richard Baron, Samuel Leré and Matthew L. focuses on these “embedded emissions” – one of the largest blind spots in global climate governance. If we want to cut global emissions effectively, we need ways to reflect the carbon that moves through global value chains. It is also a politically sensitive area: decisions on accounting and responsibility can trigger concern about competitiveness or fairness. All the more reason to avoid fragmented responses and work towards cooperative approaches. Our paper highlights a political entry point: a cooperative system – bilateral or plurilateral – grounded in common data and shared monitoring, made possible by technical alignment. Some data already exists, but more work is needed to refine it. The European Climate Foundation will play its part by publishing a tracker at the end of 2026. But measurement alone will not deliver change. We also need practical cooperation and political will. This could help major economies – including the EU, China, India and Brazil – work together on standards for near-zero industrial materials, and align public procurement and industrial policies so they reward cleaner production rather than penalise development. The details are complex. What looks like slow progress from the outside often reflects difficult work on definitions, baselines and compatibility. Yet a larger picture is emerging: cooperation on embedded emissions can bridge industrial competitiveness, climate ambition and a fairer trading system. In practical terms, our paper outlines several steps: – harmonising core accounting principles so that data can be trusted and compared; – a voluntary coalition of countries must regularly publish their imported emissions and set reduction targets – developing shared benchmarks for low-emissions materials; – using public and private procurement to create real markets for clean industrial products; – ensuring emerging economies have the support needed to participate fully. You can read the full report here: https://lnkd.in/ecyjxdh9 Many thanks to the Climate Club team for their leadership, and to all those building the spaces where this cooperation can take shape. On the road to Belém and beyond, trade policy must now become core to the decarbonisation effort – and support the essential task of phasing out fossil fuels.

Greenwash like a pro, part 2: (after my first post went viral) Lesson # 2: "The airport on a path to CO2 free, net zero future." 5 reasons why this ad is misleading: 1. "Net zero by 2035" ↳ covers only buildings, cars, or electricity ↳ not 99% of their footprint: the flights ↳it's like a coal plant saying it's green, because the office runs on solar 2. "Munich airport will reduce ... " ↳ “will” = future promise, not action ↳ I could say: "I will become a # 1 heavy-lifter by 2035.” ↳ it sounds cool. it doesn't make it real 3. "... it's own CO2..." ↳ “own” = Scope 1 and 2 only ↳ excludes 99% of the CO2: Scope 3 ↳ no jet fuel, take offs, or landings are included 4. and finally: "net-zero." ↳ net zero ≠ zero ↳ CO2 is still produced, just a lot less ↳ this is usually achieved with offsets & cuts 5. "Our path to a carbon-free future" ↳ nothing is carbon-free ↳ even renewables need steel, cement, or rare earths ↳ this is a slogan, not a scientific claim Don't get me wrong - I support real actions to a cleaner future. But there is a fine line with misleading consumers. It took me 1 hour to unpack this, and I've worked in sustainability for 11 years. What will a regular passenger think? Anyway.. I have more like these... Should I just keep going? 😂 PS: Yes, I fly, sometimes. I’m not perfect. But at least I don’t run ads calling it sustainable. #sustainability #climatechange #circulareconomy

A Time to Reflect on the Tensions Between Growth and Sustainability #NYCW Next week, world leaders and industry giants will gather for New York Climate Week, ready to discuss collaboration to tackle the climate crisis. It’s a promising step, right? But here’s the twist: this all happens in a country that champions a capitalist economy—one that demands perpetual growth and profits. Can we really expect a system designed for “more, more, more” to suddenly protect the planet and its people? On one hand, development fuels progress, and progress is rooted in growth. On the other hand, that very pursuit of growth undermines sustainability. How can we reconcile this? Take maritime decarbonization: we’re focused on alternative fuels to cut emissions. But maybe the real solution lies in reducing global trade itself. Fewer ships, fewer emissions. Can we embrace that reality in a globalized world? Perhaps it’s time to rethink sustainability altogether. Instead of focusing solely on economic growth, we need to re-balance our approach, placing environmental sustainability on equal footing. Just as governments and regulators have propped up the economy, we need that same commitment to protect our ecosystems. Without environmental checks and balances, does a capitalist economy really set us up for a sustainable future? As we head into Climate Week, it’s worth critically evaluating the very foundations of our assumptions. Are we ready for real change—or are we simply polishing the surface of a flawed system?

I met my inspiration at NY Climate Week and the insights she dropped will shape my work for years. Solitaire Townsend shared something uncomfortable: we've been telling the same "running out of time" story for longer than some activists have been alive. After decades at Futerra studying storytelling, here's the truth → Stories are 22 times more likely to be remembered than facts. Yet we keep managing data instead of managing emotion. Three narrative killers plague climate stories: → Sacrifice – telling people they must give up everything → Agency – making people feel powerless → Fatalism – convincing young people (up to 50%) that we're doomed When she started in the '90s, renewable energy was a joke—"what a few weirdos in California did." Now it's cheaper than fossil fuels. The story changed. The world changed. But we're STILL stuck at the inciting incident without moving forward. That's not how society changes. Society changes through punctuated equilibrium. Everything stays the same, then everything changes at once. We're at that moment. Here's what we miss: people engage with climate differently. After testing across markets from China to the US to Europe, Futerra identified three psychographic groups in your boardrooms and buying committees: GREENS (systems-first) → Push lifecycle TCO, Scope 1-3 cuts, resilience scores. Want credible roadmaps, open data and predictive impact metrics. What stalls them: short-termism and vendor lock-in GOLDS (societal-status focused) → Ask "What are peers doing?" Need recognizable logos, benchmarks, case studies. Move on what will make them look good internally and externally What stalls them: jargon and unclear immediate value. BRICKS (pragmatic operators) → Need <18-month payback, concrete playbooks, role-level wins. Track OPEX cuts and cycle time. What stalls them: Vague benefits and unclear ROI The tragedy is that Greens and Bricks fight each other. Greens push systems thinking; Bricks demand immediate ROI. Both try to convert Golds, who follow momentum. The insight: Stop trying to make every stakeholder Green. Your buying committee has all three. Your roadmap needs to speak to all three. If we change the story, we can change the world. We are homo narrativus : the storytelling ape. It's time we acted like it. -- Looking to tell effective stories for GTM in Climate? Check the pinned comment.

New research models the likelihoods of different climate scenarios. It shows that 3°C isn’t a worst-case. It’s the most likely. Up until now, climate scenarios have been treated as narrative pathways without assigned probabilities. Climate scientists have resisted giving scenarios a likelihood because of deep uncertainty. That is, the full range of outcomes due to physical, social, political and technological changes can't be known, and therefore, probabilities cannot be reliably estimated. Climate scenarios were described as exploratory tools, not forecasts and were designed to illuminate plausible pathways, not predict them. But... intuitively, we know that some climate futures are more likely than others. This information is helpful for business decision-making. This new paper from the EDHEC Climate Institute challenges the idea that probabilities can't be assigned to climate scenarios and provides two robust, data-driven methods to do it. The first is an 'informative method', which starts with economists’ views on the social cost of carbon (SCC). In effect, it converts wishful thinking into plausible expectations. The second is a 'maximum entropy method'. It makes as few assumptions as possible, using current carbon prices and basic policy constraints as the only inputs. What’s remarkable is that both approaches produce results that are very similar. Does this mean that some climate pathways are more locked in than we think? Model outputs: 🔸 The most likely temperature anomaly in 2100 is between 2.8–3.0ºC 🔸 There is a 35–40% chance of exceeding 3.0ºC 🔸 There is just a 1% chance of staying below 1.5ºC The model was also tested using Oxford Economics scenarios. The results were even more shocking. 🔸 The ‘Climate Catastrophe’ carries a likelihood of 57.5%. 🔸 The ‘Climate Distress’ scenario carries a likelihood of 35% 🔸 Together, they make up 92.5% of the total These high temperatures increase the likelihood of triggering irreversible tipping points, for which standard damage functions no longer apply. This is dangerous territory. 𝗠𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 Most companies use climate scenarios that treat all futures as exploratory scenarios. But this doesn't allocate future risk efficiently. Without probabilities, we cannot optimise capital allocation between mitigation (transition risk) and adaptation (physical risk). Assigning probabilities to scenarios changes the conversation. It equips firms to weigh investment in risk reduction not just by severity but also by likelihood. Personally, I believe this is a critical next step in climate risk planning. Assigned likelihoods should be accompanied by uncertainty bounds—so decision-makers can assess not just what’s likely, but how confident we can be in those estimates. Source: https://lnkd.in/exy5TDS8 _____________ 𝘍𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘥𝘐𝘯: Scott Kelly