Lee Cheng’s Post

Excerpt: Whenever I write about climate change, I receive a flurry of messages from naysayers and gadflies who still believe that anthropogenic climate change is either not happening or is wildly exaggerated. While temperatures hit record highs month after month and the seas boil, many of these commenters believe the “liberal” or technocratic / World Economic Forum / Bilderberg elites are using a phony global warming hype as a plot to institute totalitarian controls on human freedom. Almost inevitably, these readers refer to the work of a small number of scientists and academics who rail against the mainstream consensus. These critics either dispute the idea that industrial CO2 causes warming, or they argue that warming is not such a big problem. In any case, they believe it isn’t a critically important issue that needs to be tackled immediately, with tremendous force, at the expense of Capitalism and GDP growth. I thought it might be helpful to put out a short guide to the most popular climate-change denying theories. When the subject comes up, we would have a single place to send the doubters, deniers, and anyone who is confused. Here is an initial draft — I would love your thoughts and comments. As you probably know, the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that CO2 emissions from human activities are the primary driver of recent global warming. They believe we need urgent, universal action to avert — as much as we can — catastrophic consequences. This isn’t too hard to understand!

New research reveals that whether you call it “climate change,” “global warming,” or something else doesn’t have a significant impact on public concern or action. What really matters is how the issue is communicated, focusing on the tangible effects people can relate to in their daily lives. Messaging that emphasizes urgency, local relevance, and solutions drives greater engagement. Read more about the latest findings on climate communication and how we can better inspire action: https://lnkd.in/g9bQgnqN

🚨#FakeNews alert! When we’re grappling with extreme weather events, climate change denial only adds fuel to the fire.  🏭From minimising CO2 impact to discrediting scientists, climate change deniers throw every argument they can at it. But facts trump fiction and the evidence is undeniable: Human activity is driving climate change. Ignoring this isn't just shortsighted—it's dangerous. Denial blocks action, leaving us vulnerable to the ravages of a changing climate. 🙋🏻🙋🏻♂️Together, though, we can make a difference. It's time to challenge denialism, spread awareness, and take meaningful action to protect our planet. 👩🏻💻Read our post to discover how to debate with climate change deniers—and win! https://lnkd.in/dgzR5Zis  #ClimateChange #FactsOverDenial

Join us at our webinar to learn why your climate strategy has a major blind spot and what to do about it!   🗓️ Thursday, December 12 at 12:00pm ET/9:00am PT   Climate super pollutants -- like methane, black carbon, low-level ozone and nitrous oxide -- are responsible for roughly half of global warming. And they are far more potent than CO2 in the critical near-term. Unfortunately, carbon markets and carbon accounting, used worldwide to drive climate action, have systematically undervalued or completely overlooked these pollutants leaving companies and governments with only half the data they need to make informed decisions. Until now.     Join the Global Heat Reduction Initiative’s Executive Director, Kiff Gallagher, and US Leading Climate Scientist, Dr. Drew Shindell, on Thursday, December 12, 2024 at 12:00pm ET for an in-depth discussion on the importance of slashing climate super pollutants and how corporations, NGOs, cities, and institutions can measure and mitigate excess atmospheric heat in the critical next decade. In this 45-minute discussion, you will learn:     ✅ About the latest progress on super pollutant science and agreements from COP29 and around the world.   ✅Why it’s critical to target super pollutants in your climate action plan, climate mitigation investment portfolio and/ or net zero target setting.     ✅ How to reduce business risk, make better mitigation investments, and get credit for the work you’re already doing by measuring and managing all drivers of global warming.   Register now! https://lnkd.in/guU-38h8   #climateaction #climatesolutions #sustainability #globalwarming

DO I NEED TO BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE TO ACT UPON IT? Record-breaking weather events are becoming impossible to ignore. With every major flood, heatwave or prolonged drought, the debate on whether this is anthropogenic (human-caused) or not rekindles. While there is merit in this discussion, I’d invite you to focus on dealing with the phenomena by mitigating its negative effects and incorporating it in your organization’s business model. Here’s the truth about climate action for businesses: ●Focus on impact, not debate — While the cause of climate change is debated, smart businesses focus on mitigating its effects. Don’t wait for consensus - act on what is already obvious. ●Embrace regenerative practices — Implement strategies that have a net positive effect on the environment. Small actions compound over time. ●Proactive businesses don’t just survive - they thrive. Climate action is an opportunity, not just a responsibility. Check out Banksy's 2009 street art, it is as relevant as ever

What are the most powerful actions individuals can take to fight global warming?🥁 What scientists say: 🥇 Voting for politicians who pledge strong climate measures 🥈 #FlyLess 🥉Eat less meat ✈ 🌡 Flying is the most polluting activity an individual can undertake and makes up a large part of the footprint of the rich 🔬 It is therefore no surprise that experts say that flying less is one of the most effective measures anyone can take: https://lnkd.in/gkv4UUwr

#ClimateChange will have significant impacts if we don't take action. This article is a great read on the topic. However, to gain more support for climate initiatives, we need to explain the impacts in a more granular way. It's important that every person understands how climate change affects them, from real estate values to higher costs of goods and services. Only then can we hope to gain broad support for change. Check out this article for more information: https://bit.ly/4ajOIOH

We're starting a climate blog on our website, focused on what the data-driven science tells us about climate change, the outlook, consequences and what we need to do about it. Understanding what might happen when and where is critical to mitigating the consequences of climate change, which have been illustrated in a small way in 2023. Our focus is on food and agri sector investments which can tackle the drivers of climate change, contribute to mitigation and position portfolios to hedge against the worst effects. Here's the first article. If you would like to get these directly into your inbox, please get in touch via the website or LinkedIn. https://lnkd.in/eqjSf7E4

Want to know what happened last year in terms of climate policy and events? Well, 2023 was the hottest year...yet. Climate events continued to rock the planet, like all major basins experiencing a category 5 storm. And WMO announced we will hit 1.5 degrees of warming within the next 5 years, albeit with a small caveat. I wrote an exhaustive post on 2023, both events and policy, have a look: #year2023 #climatechange #climateaction #climatepolicy #policy https://lnkd.in/dKdsU9GG

Weather or Climate? “Land temperatures in March were 14.14C, exceeding the previous high set in March 2016 by 0.1C. This was 1.68C above the pre-industrial average for the month of March, and for the 12-month period it surpassed the 1850 to 1900 average by 1.58C” (FT 10th April 2024) Climatologists differentiate between weather and climate by tracking the latter for consistent observations over at least 30 years. For sure, 12 months is not yet 30 years, but as argued below, the real issue is science-based risk assessment. The science has uncertainties as the models struggle with the immense complexities of their subject. Climate sceptics (ignore the deniers as ideologues) are scientists who question the models and their predictions, albeit too often funded by the fossil fuel industry or representing highly conservative think-tanks. Despite this, their arguments still need to be addressed through science. The implications are too grave to ignore. A key issue is that in science uncertainty comes in the form of probability, and at the heart of the debates are the risks associated with those probabilities. We should all hope the sceptics are correct, but science as it stands requires us to doubt that conclusion. I am currently ploughing my way through the arguments for a book on climate change and global warming, seriously trying to get a handle on these issues. I am an economist not a climatologist (any out there with advice?) and nor are the general public, but a respect for science and a basic understanding of the issues (including the methodologies) is essential for evidence-based policy making. For anyone interested in following the sources of disagreement, a helpful starting point is Skeptical Science at https://lnkd.in/gXxK-NJd. There are Youtube videos galore on both sides of the argument.