Christopher Caldwell’s Post

𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐬𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞? It's not just about the science; it's also about how we talk about it. Christopher Caldwell explores the idea of "post-truth" applied to climate change: very often, facts take a backseat to what people want to believe. This distortion of information makes it harder for us to take meaningful action against climate change. It's like trying to solve a puzzle with missing pieces. And it gets even trickier when politicians prioritize what makes us comfortable over what's actually true. 𝐒𝐨, 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭? ✒️ Instead of just throwing facts at people, we need to tell stories that resonate emotionally ✒️ Stories that show how we can create a better future for ourselves and our planet ✒️ Stories that narrate how we can all work together to fight climate change If you want to know more about the gap between perceptions and actions, click the articles below! 📌 FABRIZIO DODARO - Beyond silence and illusion: navigating between greenhushing and greenwashing https://lnkd.in/dpEQ4kbT 📌 Robert Cobbold - The planet needs you to be more intelligent https://lnkd.in/d7uKDQDE 📌 Kasper Benjamin Reimer Bjørkskov - Bridging the gap: aligning our beliefs with our actions https://lnkd.in/dJJpS8mA #truth #storytelling #climatechange #politics #illuminem

Only 2 years left before the Climate Apocalypse? Dang, I better give the government all my money and freedoms then. ========================= "Humanity has only two years left “to save the world” by making dramatic changes in the way it spews heat-trapping emissions and it has even less time to act to get the finances behind such a massive shift, the head of the United Nations climate agency said. With governments of the world facing a 2025 deadline for new and stronger plans to curb carbon pollution, nearly half of the world's populations voting in elections this year, and crucial global finance meetings later this month in Washington, United Nations executive climate secretary Simon Stiell said Wednesday he knows his warning may sound melodramatic. But he said action over the next two years is “essential.” “We still have a chance to make greenhouse gas emissions tumble, with a new generation of national climate plans. But we need these stronger plans, now,” Stiell said in a speech at the Chatham House think tank in London. ... "Who exactly has two years to save the world? The answer is every person on this planet,” Stiell said. “More and more people want climate action right across societies and political spectrums, in large part because they are feeling the impacts of the climate crisis in their everyday lives and their household budgets.” ... https://lnkd.in/g2RtsebN

Carbon and climate change has become a big talking point during quarterly earnings calls. Climate related talk in earnings calls was fairly constant during the first 18 years of the 21st Century. It rose gradually between 2002 and 2008/09, and then as the Great Financial Crisis hit and global efforts to accelerate climate policy stumbled, talk of carbon and other climate related discussions took a back seat. It surged again following the Paris climate accord in 2015, but has once again fallen as other issues have taken centre-stage. As Shell and other oil majors have backtracked on commitments to cut emissions how can investors and other stakeholders check whether companies really mean what they say? The clues are not in the main part of the earnings call. The tell-tale signs tend to be in the Q&A session. A high degree of climate related terms here is strongly associated with subsequent reductions in CO2 emissions. Given this section tends to be less scripted, a strong degree of climate related discussion in the Q&A gives the best indication as to whether executives really mean what they say. #shell #carbonmarkets https://lnkd.in/eznZdq3c

Another voice of reason in the climate change discourse - as it were - is Dr. Jessica Weinkle. Her analyses are thorough and fair. For anyone who wants to take a deep dive into the world of climate scenario models and their financial implications - and how deeply rooted the completely implausible scenarios are in our financial mainstream - this article lays it all bare. "A leading story in the Wall Street Journal’s financial section last week extolled Bill Gates’s numerous climate investments. The underlying message was clear: there’s big money in climate change....But it is important not to lose sight of how this financial interest may distort climate change research...One reason extreme emissions scenarios may be so difficult to ditch is because of the climate analysis consulting business, which depends on them and constitutes the link between scientists and the business community." Of course we know this already, but it's still a stark reminder of how far we have to go to climate transparency. #climatechange #climate #ipcc #

"We can't do anything about climate change. So let's stop wasting money on so-called mitigation and invest it in adaptation instead!" Have you heard similar "arguments" lately? I could be wrong (I hope I am), but it seems to be a new strategy of climate impact deniers or ignoramuses. You can find exactly this narrative in actual petitions published by the so-called "Alternative" in Germany (a kind of political party that aims to create problems and social polarisation). The next time someone comes up with this nonsense, let us refer to the recent study published in Nature. The costs of "stop fighting and try to live with it" are at least SIX times higher. And - this is not new, unfortunately - our industrialized world's emissions will cause immense pain to the most vulnerable countries, regions, and people who have no responsibility for this mess. https://lnkd.in/dvSvQ_4T? email=467cb6399cb7df64551775e431052b43a775c749&emaila=12a6d4d069cd56cfddaa391c24eb7042&emailb=054528e7403871c79f668e49dd3c44b1ec00c7f611bf9388f76bb2324d6ca5f3&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=04.17.24%20Sustainability%20CMS%20BH]

Do you keep an eye on the future of investing and its impact on climate change? Then you should check out our latest article exploring why institutional investors should prioritize allocating capital to climate solutions. You'll discover the compelling reasons behind this pivotal shift and gain insights into the opportunities and benefits it presents. Here is the link to the full article! https://lnkd.in/dcxkHtsa

Alarming paper in Nature Magazine - The Economic Commitment of Climate Change - finds that we are already committed to a 19% reduction in global incomes by 2049 with global annual damages of $38trn! ' we find that projected global damages are statistically indistinguishable across the two most extreme emission scenarios until 2049 As such, the climate damages occurring before this time constitute those to which the world is already committed owing to the combination of past emissions and the range of future emission scenarios that are considered socio-economically plausible. These committed damages comprise a permanent income reduction of 19% on average globally' https://lnkd.in/eKgMsFDR

Recently, Kotz et al. have published a widely acknowledged economic assessment of the costs of climate change mitigation versus expected damages, in line with the Stern Review from 2006. Until 2050 they calculate a global average income reduction of ~19% (11-29%) due to climatic impacts, independent of the chosen mitigation pathway. This might outweigh mitigitation costs to achieve the 2 °C target by about a factor of 6 (i.e. 3%), with significant divergence after 2050. The realization that climate mitigation results in major economic benefits and therefore should be the policy priority is nothing new, see for instance the Stern Review, which came to similar conclusions. It is about time, that this message gets through to politicians and voters alike and is followed through with consequence and determination. #zerodegrees https://lnkd.in/eg7eDv_4

There is ample evidence that people’s votes are influenced by climate change. But the evidence is more mixed around how climate change impacts peoples’ investments. This image from https://lnkd.in/e6C98srv shows the consequences of that imbalance. Only 24% of the world’s nations have entirely resisted efforts to set net-zero targets, but 42% of global companies have. Expressing yourself – with your votes and your investments – makes a big difference. https://lnkd.in/emacerXB . #TillInvestors #TillSustainable #ESGInvesting #ESG #ESGIsNotATree #InvestingInEnvironment #GreenerFuture

Recently, Kotz et al. have published a widely acknowledged economic assessment of the costs of climate change mitigation versus expected damages, in line with the Stern Review from 2006. Until 2050 they calculate a global average income reduction of ~19% (11-29%) due to climatic impacts, independent of the chosen mitigation pathway. This might outweigh mitigitation costs to achieve the 2 °C target by about a factor of 6 (i.e. 3%), with significant divergence after 2050. The realization that climate mitigation results in major economic benefits and therefore should be the policy priority is nothing new, see for instance the Stern Review, which came to similar conclusions. It is about time, that this message gets to politicians and voters alike and is followed through with consequence and determination. #zerodegrees