Climate Change Insights

🌍 How can humanity continue to develop without destroying the foundations of life on Earth? A major new study, co-authored by the PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, charts a scientific path forward — and warns of the cost of inaction. Business-as-usual leads to ongoing deterioration in climate, biodiversity, freshwater, and nutrient cycles. But when ambitious climate policy is paired with systemic sustainability measures — like shifting to a low-meat diet, halving food waste, reforesting land, and managing water and nutrients efficiently — the damage can be halted, even reversed. By 2050, the planet can return to 2015-level conditions. By 2100, Earth systems could begin to recover significantly. 🧭 This study combines the planetary boundaries framework with integrated climate models to create a navigation system for decision-makers. At the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), we emphasize the power of climate services — turning science into actionable policy — to help countries and companies manage these risks, anticipate disruptions, and build long-term resilience. We need coordinated global action, driven by data and grounded in science. Because protecting our future means safeguarding the systems that sustain life. The tools are here. The science is clear. The time is now. https://lnkd.in/eVuR9yDu

The impact of climate change on the SDGs 🌎 The latest State of the Global Climate 2024 report from WMO provides a clear assessment of how accelerating climate change is affecting global stability. With 2024 recorded as the hottest year on record—1.55°C above pre-industrial levels—the implications extend far beyond temperature increases. The findings highlight the direct and systemic risks climate change poses to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Rising temperatures, ocean acidification, sea-level rise, and glacial melt are driving widespread environmental and socio-economic disruptions. These changes are not occurring in isolation; they are interconnected, amplifying existing challenges related to food security (SDG 2), water availability (SDG 6), economic resilience (SDG 8), and biodiversity loss (SDGs 14 & 15). Ocean changes are among the most critical risks. Increasing ocean temperatures and acidification are disrupting marine ecosystems, reducing fish stocks, and weakening the ocean’s ability to act as a carbon sink. This has significant consequences for coastal communities, food security, and global supply chains. Glacial loss and sea-level rise are reshaping landscapes, affecting infrastructure, water resources, and human settlements. Coastal erosion, land degradation, and increased flooding threaten urban development (SDG 11), economic productivity (SDG 9), and disaster resilience (SDG 13). These impacts also contribute to population displacement, further straining social and economic systems. The increase in extreme weather events, from heatwaves to hurricanes, is exacerbating global inequality. Agricultural losses, infrastructure damage, and rising adaptation costs are disproportionately affecting developing regions, slowing progress toward economic stability, sustainable production, and resource security (SDGs 8 & 12). The WMO report emphasizes that while exceeding 1.5°C in a single year does not mean the Paris Agreement target has been breached, the trend underscores the urgency of reducing emissions and strengthening adaptation strategies. Without immediate action, climate risks will continue to escalate, undermining progress toward the SDGs and increasing long-term economic and environmental costs. Addressing these challenges requires systemic policy shifts, investment in climate resilience, and cross-sector collaboration. As climate change intensifies, integrating sustainability into decision-making at all levels will be essential to mitigating risks and safeguarding global development objectives. Source: State of the Global Climate 2024 #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #sdgs

🌍 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

The Guardian with three articles on 'The great carbon divide' also based on a report in collaboration with Oxfam Novib: Understanding the role of the super-rich and affluent individuals (the top 1% and 10% by income) in climate breakdown is crucial for successfully stabilising our planet and ensuring a good life for all of humanity. 🌍🌐 The super-rich play a pivotal role in the climate narrative in three significant ways: 🔸 Daily Emissions: Through the carbon they emit in their daily lives, stemming from their consumption habits, including activities such as yacht and private jet usage, and their opulent lifestyles. 🔸 Financial Interests: Through their investments and shareholdings in heavily polluting industries, reflecting their vested financial interest in maintaining the current economic status quo. 🔸 Influence Over Society: Through the undue influence they exert over the media, the economy, and the spheres of politics and policy-making. Carbon inequality is striking (👇): 🔻 The wealthiest 1% contributes more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%. 🔻 The top 10% of the richest individuals (in financial wealth) are responsible for 50% of all emissions (2019 data). 🔻 The middle 40% bears responsibility for 43% of all emissions. 🔻 The remaining 50% collectively accounts for the remaining emissions. A range of policies and ideas presented in the Oxfam Novib report should be implemented to address these issues. Particularly noteworthy are the proposals under 'A new purpose for a new age': ✔ Go beyond GDP ✔ Target and limit growth ✔ End the capture of political institutions and the media by rich individuals and corporate interests ✔ Fully reject neoliberal economics in favour of a proactive role for the state ✔ Rebalance global institutions in favour of the Global South 🌐💡 #ClimateAction #WealthInequality Much more to say about it. Better to read it yourself 😁 Guardian: https://lnkd.in/eHa_xJzQ Oxfam report: https://lnkd.in/eAVhHWun

What can the past teach us about tackling the climate crisis? This week Pawley Emily, an environmental historian at Dickinson College, explores how lessons from past social movements can inspire action today. 📈 Good News: Social movements have already reshaped our lives in profound ways—often more than we realize. From the Clean Air Act’s life-saving impact to the rights many enjoy today, history shows that incremental, local efforts can build to sweeping change. 📉 Not So Good News: This change is rarely straightforward. Social movements are messy, imperfect, and require ongoing vigilance to prevent erosion. Learning from the past is essential to ensuring future solutions are truly just and equitable. 💪 What You Can Do: Engage with local groups already working toward positive change. Offer your own unique skills and resources. Be ready to adapt and innovate, drawing inspiration from the tactics—and mistakes—of past movements. We can't do this alone; but history teaches us that we CAN do it together.

𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵 #𝟱 – “𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆” Let’s be honest: it feels like it sometimes. The backlash, the burnout, the boredom - it’s real. And I get it. We’re all tired. The momentum of the past few years is giving way to fatigue. Some companies are (quietly) walking back climate targets. And those of us still in the game? We’re working harder for a quarter of the attention (literally!). Yes, we are seeing backsliding. It’s not just noise. Nearly 40% of corporate climate targets are being dropped or delayed. ESG funds are hit by record outflows. AI is stealing every headline. The watered-down EU CSRD regulation and the hostile ESG&DEI environment in the US have shifted the narrative dramatically - sending a message to the market: maybe the sustainability party is really over. But while some are stepping back, others are doubling down. 𝗪𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗦-𝗰𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 Change rarely moves in a straight line. It slows down, it stalls and then suddenly it picks up speed. And here’s the thing: the S-curve and the hype cycle are almost never aligned. You can be past the media buzz and still be right in the steepest part of real transformation. And right now, that’s exactly where we are. Just look at the data: wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. EVs have gone from niche to normal across Europe and China. Heat pumps, alternative proteins, regenerative agriculture all are scaling fast. And circular business models are revolutionizing how we produce and consume from repair and reuse to product-as-a-service. The companies that will thrive? They’re not the ones making the most noise, they’re the ones reading S-curves, investing in innovation, and placing smart bets on future markets. If you're walking away from climate targets in 2025, your problem isn’t sustainability. It’s future-proofing. 𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 For those of you who are facing a lot of headwinds right now, don’t get discouraged. Here are a few ways to refuel:  • 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺. I say this to myself too, sustainability work can be deeply draining. Recharge! Resilience is key.  • 𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦. If sustainability feels “unsexy” right now, anchor it to what’s top of mind: resilience, risk, competitiveness. Sustainability isn’t gone, it just continues under different names in different phases.  • 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘮. If the spotlight’s gone, it’s time to move backstage and keep things moving. Change doesn’t always need a big stage.   • 𝘙𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳: we’ve been here before. Sustainability doesn’t move in hype cycles, it moves in system cycles. And we’re still in the game. 𝗕𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲: We don’t need a party. We need change. And a bit of stamina. As Johan Rockström put it yesterday in Villars: “The party might be over. But the game isn’t.”

🔥 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

What’s holding back natural climate solutions? Natural climate solutions (NCS)—from reforestation and agroforestry to wetland restoration—have long been championed as low-cost, high-benefit pathways for reducing greenhouse gases. In theory, they could provide over a third of the climate mitigation needed by 2030 to stay under 2°C of warming. But in practice, progress is stalling. A sweeping new PNAS Nexus study reveals why. Drawing on 352 peer-reviewed papers across 135 countries, researchers led by Hilary Brumberg cataloged 2,480 documented barriers to implementing NCS. The obstacles are not ecological. Rather, they are human: insufficient funding, patchy information, ineffective policies, and public skepticism. The result is a vast “implementation gap” between what is technically possible and what is politically, economically, or socially feasible. The analysis found that “lack of funding” was the most commonly cited constraint globally—identified in nearly half of all countries surveyed. Yet it rarely stood alone. Most regions face a tangle of interconnected hurdles. Constraints from different categories often co-occur, compounding difficulties: poor governance erodes trust; disinterest stems from unclear benefits; technical know-how is stymied by bureaucratic confusion. These patterns vary by region and type of intervention. Reforestation projects, for instance, face particularly high scrutiny over equity concerns—especially in the Global South, where land tenure insecurity and historical injustices run deep. Agroforestry and wetland restoration often struggle with the complexity of design and monitoring. Meanwhile, grassland and peatland pathways remain understudied, despite their importance. The study’s most striking insight may be spatial. Countries within the same UN subregion tend to share a similar profile of constraints—more so than across broader development regions. This geographic clustering suggests an opportunity: Supranational collaboration, if properly resourced and attuned to local context, could address shared challenges more efficiently than isolated national efforts. Crucially, the authors argue that piecemeal fixes will not suffice. Because most countries face an average of seven distinct constraints, many from different domains, effective solutions must be integrated and cross-sectoral. Adaptive management—a flexible, feedback-based approach—could help. By identifying which barriers arise at each stage of an NCS project’s lifecycle, it may be possible to design interventions that are not just technically sound, but socially and politically viable. Natural climate solutions still hold vast potential. But unlocking it will require less focus on where trees grow best—and more on where people can make them thrive. 🔬 Brumberg et al 2025. Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus. https://lnkd.in/gDmYJEph

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 milestone for climate justice: today the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights delivered its long‑awaited advisory opinion on climate change and human rights, requested by Chile and Colombia in 2023. The Court unanimously confirms that a safe, stable climate is part of the right to a healthy environment protected by the American Convention and that States must take affirmative measures—through laws, policies and ecosystem restoration—to prevent, mitigate and remedy climate harm, both within their borders and extraterritorially. The opinion goes further than any previous regional or international climate ruling in articulating climate obligations of States under human rights law. It stresses common but differentiated responsibilities, highlights States' obligations to regulate major emitters and combat disinformation campaigns, and singles out the heightened vulnerability—and corresponding rights—of Indigenous peoples, children and future generations. Moreover, the Court establishes that the obligation not to cause irreversible damage to climate and environment has the character of a peremptory norm of international law. For courts, legislators and negotiators, this is a transformative interpretive benchmark. It will inform domestic and regional climate litigation, reshape environmental governance across Latin America and the Caribbean, and lend authoritative weight to parallel processes such as the pending International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change and the push for greater mitigation ambition and finance at COP 30 in Belém. As counsel for Vanuatu in these proceedings, I am heartened by the Court’s clarity: human rights law demands decisive climate action, and reparation is due where neglecting this duty has already caused harm. The task for all of us—lawyers, policymakers, scholars and advocates—is to translate today’s jurisprudence into concrete, rights‑based measures that protect people and planet alike.