Science

Not all “green” claims are real. Greenwashing happens when companies pretend to be sustainable but fail to take real action. It misleads consumers, slows climate progress, and allows businesses to profit from false promises. Here’s how to spot the difference between Greenwashing vs. Genuine Climate Impact: ❌ Greenwashing: ✖ Vague sustainability claims with no proof ✖ Buzzwords like "eco-friendly" & "carbon neutral" without verification ✖ High-budget PR campaigns instead of real change ✖ Profit-driven marketing disguised as sustainability ✅ Genuine Climate Impact: ✔ Clear, measurable data & transparent reporting ✔ Science-backed solutions with independent audits ✔ Companies that admit challenges & show real progress ✔ Purpose-driven investments that create lasting environmental change Truth matters. In a world where climate action is urgent, businesses must choose impact over image. ▶ Do your research. Demand transparency. Support real change. #Sustainability #ClimateAction #Greenwashing #Transparency #ClimateTech #ESG #ImpactInvesting

A 1°C rise in temperature is a poverty multiplier. New global evidence based on subnational data from 130 countries shows that each additional degree of warming: ✖️ Increases poverty by 0.63–1.18 percentage points ✖️ Raises inequality by 1.3–1.9% (Gini index) ✖️ Pushes 62–99 million more people into poverty by 2030 compared to a world without climate change The impacts are not evenly distributed. They are strongest in poorer countries, especially where agriculture dominates livelihoods, and are particularly acute across Sub-Saharan Africa. When we look only at national averages, much of the damage disappears. But subnational analysis reveals the real story: large, localized climate shocks interacting with poverty, inequality, and vulnerability. This matters for policy, finance, and development planning. If we underestimate climate risk by relying on national-level data, we: 1️⃣ Misprice climate risk 2️⃣ Misallocate adaptation finance 3️⃣ Miss the communities most exposed Climate change is no longer just about emissions trajectories. It is about distributional impacts, justice, and who pays the price first. This is why granular climate intelligence must sit at the heart of poverty reduction, adaptation, and development strategies. Because climate risk is not abstract. It is local, unequaland already reshaping development outcomes. read the article in Nature here 👇 https://lnkd.in/ehtBmjip

After contentious discussions at #COP29, developed countries pledged to contribute at least $300 billion annually to help developing countries tackle the #climatecrisis. A drop in the ocean compared to the needs and to the ever-increasing cost of weather, water and climate disasters. The price of #ClimateAction may seem high. But the price of inaction is much higher. This is highlighted by a Carbon Brief article which I am #nowreading, called "Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the world." In the past, climate scientists were reluctant to pinpoint the role of human-induced climate change in individual extreme weather events. But that has now changed thanks to big advances in the science of attribution. Attribution studies calculate whether, and by how much, #climatechange affected the intensity, frequency or impact of extremes – from #heatwaves, to #drought, record-breaking #rainfall and rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones. Carbon Brief looked at more than 600 studies, covering almost 750 extreme weather events and trends, and produced an interactive map. Across all these cases, 74% were made more likely or severe because of climate change. This includes multiple cases where scientists found that an extreme was virtually impossible without human influence on global temperatures. Details: https://lnkd.in/dZTsgT-n These findings echo the excellent work of climate scientists and experts from National Meteorological and Hydrological Services who are part of the World Weather Attribution network. The recent report on “10 years of rapidly disentangling drivers of extreme weather disasters” was clear in its conclusion. “Our work, alongside the wider scientific literature, now shows that with every ton of coal, oil and gas burned, all heatwaves get hotter, and the overwhelming majority of heavy rainfall events, droughts, and tropical cyclones get more intense,” it said. https://lnkd.in/d-prYhvU

Soapbox Nerd Rant #4: No climate solution gets a free pass from accounting rules. I’ve been noticing another persistent fallacy in climate solution conversations; many people seem to think that some climate solutions are immune to accounting challenges such as additionality, durability, and/or leakage. For example, many in the verified carbon market think that tree planting doesn’t need to prove its additional benefit over natural forest regrowth, and even the UNFCCC seems to think that durability applies only to removals. This is false. Accounting rules work because they apply across the board. Believe me, after 15 years of work in this space, I get that these rules can be annoying . But that doesn’t mean they can and should be evaded. It sounds pedantic, but it’s true: functional markets and societies are built on the foundation of good rules. After decades of trial, error and effort in climate solution accounting, we have a pretty good sense of the base ruleset. That’s not to say we don’t need to refine and continue stress-testing these rules; we absolutely do. There’s tons of work needed to innovate accounting for rigor and efficiency. But the base requirements are well-known and universal: 1) The Additionality Rule: To claim any impact (aka a “credit), you need to demonstrate your actions are additional against a counterfactual (or baseline). 2) The Durability Rule: To ensure durable impact, you need to keep checking for it. 3) The Leakage Rule: To ensure your impact doesn’t have unintended consequences, you need to evaluate spillover effects (leakage). There are other rules to consider, but nobody gets a free pass from these three. In December, a group of scientists convened to take a hard look art these accounting rules and investigate ways to refine and stress test them for rigor and efficiency. We call ourselves Science for High Integrity Frameworks to Transform the Carbon Market, or SHIFT-CM. If you're a natural climate solution crediting geek, join us! https://lnkd.in/ghaT9ArP In upcoming posts, in the spirit of the SHIFT-CM science endeavor, I will unpack these (and other) climate solution accounting challenges, flag pitfalls and misconceptions, and suggest some innovations for the future. If you’d like to listen in on the next Soapbox Nerd conversation, pull up a chair in the LinkedIn village square (aka follow me). And the next time you are asked to evaluate the credibility of a project, don’t be afraid to ask: how have you accounted for additionality, durability, and leakage? @NaturalClimateSolutions Nature4Climate

💡I came across this case study yesterday - a great illustration of the costs of climate liability risk for any carbon-intensive industry: 👉 In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey hit Texas and Louisiana causing severe flooding, loss of human life and economic losses, estimated at $125 billion. Science tells us climate change contributed to Harvey’s severity and impacts.   👉 Using attribution science (a scientific analysis which links climate-induced damage to emissions of a particular company), oil major Shell would have an annual liability of US$0.55 billion (550 million) if held liable for its contribution to two events with losses equal to those of Hurricane Harvey. 👉 In seven years between 2017 and today, this would make its liability equal to 3.85 billion (3,850 million). This amounts to more than half of the company’s profits in the second quarter of 2024 (reported at $6.3 billion).  Now Harvey does not happen every day. Yet progress in attribution science makes it possible to link corporate GHG emissions to hurricanes, floods, heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires, all of which are occurring with increased frequency and severity every year.     💡 Management of climate liability risk falls squarely within the duties of every director of every carbon-intensive business. Think emission mitigation strategies and transition planning. 💡Failure to manage it or outright mismanagement may lead to personal liability. I call this director’s cost of climate change - a case study for another time.  #climatechange #climaterisk #climatelitigation #law #liability #climateliability

The climate crisis is breaking financial systems 🌎 The growing impact of the climate crisis is creating systemic risks for the global financial system, particularly through the insurance sector. As extreme weather events become more frequent and severe, the ability to provide insurance coverage is rapidly declining. Without adequate risk protection, core financial services such as mortgages, infrastructure investment, and credit markets are becoming increasingly unstable. The insurance industry, long aware of climate-related risks, is now warning that certain regions—especially coastal, arid, and wildfire-prone areas—are becoming uninsurable. This trend is already affecting asset values and financial planning across sectors. As global temperatures rise toward 3°C, the scale of economic losses may exceed the capacity of insurers and governments to respond. The data points are clear: over $2 trillion in climate-related damages occurred in the last decade, with $400 billion in losses recorded in 2024 alone. In many cases, the cost of premiums now exceeds what individuals and businesses can afford. This breakdown in insurability is a direct threat to financial stability, as it disrupts the mechanisms that support long-term investment and asset protection. Adaptation strategies, while necessary, are proving insufficient in many high-risk areas. Physical limits—such as heat thresholds and flood exposure—make certain forms of adaptation unviable. The assumption that most regions can adjust to worsening conditions is being challenged by real-world events and cost data. The only viable path to maintaining financial system functionality is rapid decarbonization. Zero-emission technologies are available, but their deployment remains too slow and fragmented. To preserve the conditions under which markets and institutions can operate, sustainability goals must be treated as core financial priorities, not secondary objectives. Source: The Guardian #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #risks

With the urgency of halving emissions by 2030, as per the IPCC's recommendation, it is worrying to say the least that corporate responsibility for carbon emissions in 2025 is still marked by a gap between ambitious pledges and actual progress, driven by weak commitments, greenwashing, and inconsistent reporting instead of action. But is that all about to change? A landmark climate case in Germany, in which a Peruvian farmer is suing energy giant RWE for its share of contribution to increased flood risk at his property, is set to be decided later this month. So can climate science attribute economic damage to major polluters? Well possibly yes, thanks to advancements in Attribution Science (altho there are limitations!): The methodology: researchers Justin Mankin (Dartmouth College) and Christopher Callahan (Stanford University) have developed a technique that simulates global average temperatures from 1991 to 2020, with and without emissions from specific fossil fuel companies. They account for both extraction and end-use emissions (e.g., burning fuels by consumers). By mapping global temperature changes to local warming patterns, they focus on the five hottest days annually, which correlate with economic losses from reduced crop yields, increased mortality, and lower labour productivity. Their findings: their analysis attributes $12–49 trillion in global GDP losses over three decades to emissions from major fossil fuel companies, with the top five (Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP) each linked to over $1 trillion in losses. For example, Chevron’s emissions are estimated to have caused $4–61 billion in US GDP losses during a 2012 heatwave. The validation: Experts like Kevin Reed (Stony Brook University) and Friederike Otto (Imperial College London) praise the study as a robust “end-to-end attribution” approach, marking it as a pioneering effort to connect specific emitters to specific damages. Otto suggests that broader adoption by other research groups could refine and strengthen the science. The paper: https://lnkd.in/ezV53Hxa

A new study may add a new variable in how we think about climate risk. While governments and businesses are preparing for a hotter future, scientists now warn of a parallel risk: sudden and extreme cooling in parts of the Northern Hemisphere. If the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (#AMOC) collapses, Europe could face winter temperatures dropping to minus 48°C. Sea ice could spread as far south as the UK and Netherlands. Cities like Oslo may spend nearly half the year below #freezing, and Northwestern Europe could see more #violent_storms. This scenario becomes more likely as global temperatures approach the 2°C threshold. Even in a warmer world, the AMOC collapse would cause cold extremes that #infrastructure, #agriculture, and #societies are simply not built to handle. But if global warming continues unchecked and the planet reaches around +4°C, the heat would eventually overpower the cooling effect. In that world, Europe may avoid the deep freeze, but face even more devastating #heatwaves, #floods, and #sea_level_rise. We have to expand our #risk_models. Climate resilience planning must account for both #heat and unexpected #cold. It’s an interesting read: https://lnkd.in/dpPXeg_V #ClimateRisk #Resilience #Sustainability #OceanCurrents #SystemicRisk #CenterforSustainableFuture Maha Al Horr Rita Carvalho Valentin Lavaill

What happens when climate risk becomes uninsurable? We’re fast approaching a world where insurance is no longer available for many climate-related risks. That’s not just a problem for individuals or businesses seeking protection. It’s a systemic risk for the entire financial sector. Without insurance, you will be unable to obtain a mortgage, investments, or loans. The economic value of entire regions, whether flood- or wildfire-prone, could disappear from financial ledgers. When risk becomes uninsurable, capital retreats. This isn’t distant speculation. It's already happening. Entire regions in the U.S. are becoming uninsurable due to wildfires and floods. If temperatures rise 2–3°C, we may face a breakdown in the very foundation of capitalism, where markets no longer function because the conditions that support them (stability, insurability, predictability) no longer exist. So, what needs to happen? ✅ Scale and accelerate the transition to zero-emissions energy. ✅ Address sustainability and financial goals together because they are connected. ✅ Governments, insurers, investors, and businesses must collaborate to address risk, build resilience, and invest in adaptation. ✅ And we must focus on the Global South, where the impacts of inaction will hit hardest and fastest. The cost of inaction is already higher than the cost of transformation. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dh2RK4D3

𝗗𝗼 𝗳𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲? 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘁. 𝗔 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂. We often assume that people living through extreme weather will naturally become more supportive of climate policy. That if your town burns, floods, or bakes, belief will follow experience. But a new global study—spanning 68 countries and over 70,000 people—shows this isn’t quite how it works. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗹. 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀. The relationship held even when objective exposure did not. Researchers found that while most people are exposed to extreme weather, it’s 𝘯𝘰𝘵 this exposure that predicts support for climate policy; it's whether people believe that climate change 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 those events. In short, it’s not 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 happens that matters. It’s 𝘸𝘩𝘺 we 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 it happened that matters most. This “𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯” was a stronger predictor of climate policy support than actual exposure for 5 of the 7 types of extreme weather studied. That’s floods, cyclones, heatwaves, heavy precipitation and winter storms. In many countries, especially across Africa and parts of Europe, the link between extreme weather and climate remains under-recognised, even when events are increasing. The study even suggests a kind of “ceiling effect” in some countries—especially in Latin America—where subjective attribution is already so high that further exposure doesn’t significantly boost policy support. 𝗠𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 What caught my attention is the power of belief over experience. Even in regions hammered by heat or soaked by storms, policy support only rises when people believe in the connection between the event and climate change. The science of attribution is evolving fast, but public understanding of attribution is lagging. We spend billions modelling exposure, but we undervalue the power of communicating direct attribution. This research suggests that unless people 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 events to climate change, there is no automatic incentive for improved policy. In one respect, this research is self-evident, but at the same time, the attribution of a single extreme weather event to climate change is a complex and challenging undertaking. The science behind communicating these links must evolve. Attribution isn’t just a scientific tool. It could be the most powerful lever we have for change. #ClimateChange #ExtremeWeather #AttributionScience #ClimatePolicy #ClimateCommunication #BehaviouralScience #GlobalSouth #Resilience #NetZero #Sustainability #SystemsThinking Source: https://lnkd.in/enHK_NKh Authors: Viktoria Cologna Simona Meiler Chahan Kropf 𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗹 _____________ For updates on sustainability and climate, follow me on LinkedIn: Scott Kelly