Myths about climate transition progress

Know your climate change myths 1. Myth: Oceans are the primary driver of climate change, as they release carbon dioxide when temperatures rise. Reality: While oceans do release CO₂, they currently absorb more CO₂ than they emit. This absorption leads to ocean acidification, a harmful consequence of human-induced emissions. 2. Myth: Changes in solar activity are the main cause of global warming. Reality: Scientific consensus confirms that human CO₂ emissions are the dominant cause of recent global warming. Solar activity has a minimal effect compared to industrial greenhouse gases. 3. Myth: Earth's climate has changed naturally in the past, so current changes are also natural. Reality: Although the climate has changed over geological timescales, the current rate and scale of warming are unprecedented and directly linked to human activity, especially since the Industrial Revolution. 4. Myth: Carbon dioxide benefits plant growth, which makes climate change beneficial for agriculture and ecosystems. Reality: While plants need CO₂, excessive CO₂ disrupts ecosystems, reduces crop yields due to heat stress, and leads to biodiversity loss through habitat changes and extreme weather. 5. Myth: Global warming has upsides, such as longer growing seasons or reduced winter heating needs. Reality: Any localized benefits are far outweighed by severe global consequences, including extreme weather, rising sea levels, food insecurity, and biodiversity loss. 6. Myth: Climate measures harm economic growth and disproportionately burden individuals. Reality: Transitioning to a green economy creates jobs, reduces healthcare costs (from pollution-related illnesses), and supports long-term economic resilience. 7. Myth: Volcanoes, animals, and other natural processes emit more CO₂ than humans. Reality: Human activities release far more CO₂ annually than all natural processes combined. Natural emissions are balanced by absorption, unlike human emissions, which disrupt the balance. 8. Myth: It’s more practical to adapt to climate impacts than to mitigate emissions. Reality: Adaptation alone can't address the contributing factors of climate change and becomes increasingly costly and less effective as impacts worsen. Prevention (mitigation) is essential to limit the severity of climate effects. 9. Myth: Countries like China and India are now the largest emitters, so they should solve the problem. Reality: While developing nations are major emitters today, wealthy countries historically contributed the majority of greenhouse gases and still lead in per capita emissions. Climate justice requires shared responsibility. 10. Myth: Wind and solar energy are not viable solutions due to their costs and variability. Reality: Renewable energy costs have plummeted, which now makes them competitive with, or cheaper than, fossil fuels. Advances in storage technology are addressing the fact that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine.

The technological and economic potential of renewables is huge, but Guterres‘ statement that the "world is on the brink of a breakthrough in the climate fight and fossil fuels are running out of road” is hugely misleading. Investments in renewables have grown massively, and costs have come down a lot. In many cases renewables are cheaper that fossils today. This is great, but it's only a small part of the story. Here's why: First, we tend to invest where things economically pay off, so no surprise these recently realized projects are attractive. But to get the net zero CO2, renewables also need to cover the locations, seasons and hours when there is little sun or wind, and that is where the costs of the system (storage, transmission, etc.) get expensive. Second, more solar or wind is nice but this alone will not eliminate fossils. Effective policies are needed to avoid them, by putting a price on carbon, by providing infrastructure (e.g. charging stations), by increasing transmission and storage, and solutions for hard to abate emissions through carbon dioxide removal. Likely all of these. Without, we'll just end up with using renewables and fossils at the same time. Third, the changes are far too slow. Investments in fossil infrastructure have only decreased by about 20% in a decade. And every dollar invested is expected to pay off over decades, so this infrastructure will emit CO2 for many decades. Current and planned infrastructure already puts us above 1.5°C, so avoiding dangerous interference requires that fossil infrastructure is left unused before it has paid off. Fourth, this transition is as much as societal political challenge as it is an economic and technological one, maybe more. Strong right-wing forces, opposition on many levels, lack of acceptance of new energy technogolgy, special interests of powerful individuals and companies, wars, tariffs, access to material, and a lack of focus on sustainability in the recent year or two are threatening the efforts and progress of the last decade. None of that is an argument that the transition isn't possible or it's not worth the effort. It‘s been scientifically shown that this is the only way forward for a healthy planet, and if we include the benefits of avoided climate change, it will be the cheapest option if we collectively do it right. I'm convinced it's possible, but suggesting or hoping that it's going to happen by itself just because of renewable alternatives getting cheaper would hugely misleading. https://lnkd.in/eNg7jsjc

🌱 Are we walking the talk on corporate climate action? A new study by Colesanti Senni et al. (Environmental Research Communications, 2024) examines how corporations disclose their climate transition plans. Using a Large Language Model-based tool, the research assessed the disclosures of Climate Action 100+ companies—the largest global emitters. The findings reveal critical gaps and opportunities in how companies communicate their climate commitments. 📊 What the study found: ✔️ Most companies are adept at outlining ambitious targets (the “talk”), such as net-zero goals and interim milestones. However, they often fall short on the actionable steps needed to achieve them (the “walk”). ✔️ The companies that disclose more tend to show lower emissions, suggesting that transparency might signal a stronger alignment between planning and progress. ⚠️ A lack of standardization in reporting frameworks remains a major barrier. Without clear, consistent benchmarks, stakeholders are left questioning whether disclosures reflect genuine efforts or greenwashing. 🧩 My reflections: When I think about corporate climate responsibility, I see three interconnected layers: intentions, actions, and outcomes. Each is critical, but the gaps between them are where trust and progress falter. ✨ Intentions: Bold commitments are often a sign of leadership, but when they remain vague or unsupported by detail, they risk being seen as little more than a marketing exercise. 🔨 Actions: This is the most critical layer—and often the weakest link. Without concrete, measurable steps, even the best intentions lack credibility. Actions should demonstrate not just a plan but a willingness to take tough, sometimes unpopular, decisions. 📊 Outcomes: While outcomes are the ultimate goal, they’re also where the evidence lies. The study’s findings suggest that detailed disclosures might correlate with lower emissions, but is this because these companies are more transparent—or simply more prepared? This cycle of intentions, actions, and outcomes is not just a corporate issue—it’s a systemic one. How can we better connect these layers to create a climate response that is both transparent and transformative? 🌍 What are your thoughts? 💡 How can companies ensure their actions truly bridge the gap between intentions and outcomes? 💡 Are current disclosure frameworks helping stakeholders distinguish between real progress and polished promises—or are they creating more confusion? You can read the full study here: https://lnkd.in/exEDwzaK #ClimateAction #Sustainability #Greenwashing #CorporateResponsibility #NetZero

The global push for a standardized “green transition” leapfrogging fossil fuel, strict carbon pricing and donor-driven conditions simply doesn’t fit Africa’s development context. In my latest ( long but needed ) article, I examine why these popular frameworks risk stalling both climate and economic progress, then offer alternative approaches grounded in on-the-ground realities across Zambia, South Africa, Senegal, Kenya and the DRC. Key takeaways: Dual-track energy build-out: We cannot leapfrog power infrastructure like we did with mobile phones. Africa needs simultaneous investment in foundational grids and renewables, so development and decarbonization advance hand in hand. Fair carbon budgets: Rather than a blunt price, allocations should reflect historical emissions, population and adaptation costs. South Africa’s phased-in tax with targeted exemptions offers one model of equity in action. Sovereign climate finance: Too often, only 45% of funding aligns with national plans. We must insist that every grant and loan serve country-determined priorities, avoiding the trap of “green conditionality.” Homegrown innovation ecosystems: Technology co-development, local manufacturing, R&D, supportive regulation and IP reform ensures projects endure beyond donor timelines and build lasting capacity. Broad economic transformation: A just transition is more than green jobs. It requires industrial diversification, targeted skills training, social protection, quality-of-work standards and formalizing informal green activities. Ultimately, Africa’s voice in global climate debates should champion development-first actions, climate justice rooted in historical responsibility, sovereign pathways of change and finance metrics that truly match the continent’s needs and contributions. Only then can climate action become a catalyst for and not a barrier to sustainable development.

Here’s a myth about sustainability that opponents love to spread. 1️⃣ For decades, opponents have said that sustainability prioritizes nature over people. Years ago, opponents claimed advocates cared about spotted owls but not people.  Today they continue to spread this message, but with different words. (E.g., the idea that fighting climate change will make people poorer or cost them their jobs.) The message is the same: sustainability advocates don’t care about people. 2️⃣ But that message is a lie. In fact, 👉 people have been key to sustainability since the beginning. 👈 Gaylord Nelson, who started Earth Day, didn’t just talk about nature in his speech on the very first Earth Day. He talked about *people.* Nelson said: 🗣️ “Environment is all of America and its problems. It is rats in the ghetto. It is the hungry child in a land of affluence. It is housing that is not worthy of the name; neighborhoods not fit to inhabit.” And when John Elkington popularized the Triple Bottom Line over 30 years ago – People, Planet, Profit – the people bottom line got equal billing. 3️⃣ And people and planet issues are linked. For example, one writer brought up housing and energy costs as issues that matter but don’t get attention from people working on climate. But that’s not true. Affordable housing and energy costs do matter (a lot), but what long-term progress can be made on them without taking climate into account? Hotter weather increases demand for power, and thus energy bills, because of cooling needs. This is true for homes, offices, and data centers. Affordable housing has non-climate aspects too (e.g., undoing restrictive zoning). But it’s also already linked to climate. There's already a link between risk and affordability (riskier places are more affordable), and this link between affordability and climate problems will only increase. And over time, climate changes will make more places risky, uninsurable (look at rising home insurance costs), or hard to live in because of the heat. 👉 What you can do: » Be ready when opponents claim sustainability puts people last. That’s not true and it never been. » When talking about your sustainability initiatives, make it clear how they affect people. Opponents will try to muddy the issue; don’t let them. #climate #sustainability #ROI #people

Fear-based narratives about climate migration distort the conversation. This article critiques the misuse of crisis narratives and flawed statistics that fuel unnecessary fear in the Global North. -- Climate change is already forcing communities, particularly in the Global South, to move, but the so-called “wave of climate refugees” is an exaggerated myth. -- Internal migration and local adaptation strategies are more common than international displacement. It rightly critiques the misuse of statistics to stoke fear but could go further by recognizing migration's potential as a resilience strategy. Migration can help communities adapt to climate impacts, redistribute risks, and diversify livelihoods. How we frame this issue matters for shaping effective, humane policies.

🌍 Climate Action: Less Expensive Than We Think 🌱 With the news of Donald Trump being re-elected as U.S. president and the disappointing outcomes of COP29 in Azerbaijan, it’s easy to feel pessimistic about the fight against climate change. Yet, this week’s Economist Briefing offers a glimmer of hope. Contrary to widespread belief, transitioning to a zero-emissions economy is far less expensive than imagined. While estimates range up to tens of trillions, the incremental cost of decarbonization is likely under 1% of global GDP annually. Falling costs for technologies like solar panels and batteries are key drivers of this affordability, and investments in clean energy are already outpacing fossil fuels. However, the real challenge lies in helping developing countries, where financing costs remain a significant barrier. For example, investors in Germany require a 7% return to fund a solar farm, while in Zambia, the prohibitive cost of capital pushes that number to 38%. Without global support, these disparities could undermine progress. What’s crucial now is that Europe prioritizes helping developing nations bridge the gap and lower their financing costs for the energy transition. This support is far more impactful than focusing solely on reducing Europe’s own emissions, which contribute just 6.5% to the global total. Check the article in the Economist https://lnkd.in/eJPpRCTG

Debunking 3 myths about investing in the climate adaptation theme ❌ Myth #1:  Climate adaptation is dependent on government funding ✔️Fact #1: Government is a buyer of climate adaptation solutions, but businesses and consumers are also buying them to protect their facilities and homes e.g. fire-resistant and flood resilient building materials. * ❌ Myth #2: Investing in climate adaptation is challenging because of climate uncertainty. ✔️ Fact #2: Investors are used to managing factors with more uncertainty than climate change. For e.g. the US 10-year Treasury yield, a key factor for underwriting investments, has varied in direction and magnitude over the last 100 years Economic growth, inflation expectations, fiscal conditions, monetary policy, geopolitics, etc. impact the US 10-year Treasury yield in a myriad of ways, making it difficult to forecast its change with high certainty. Global average temperatures however have only moved in one direction over the last century: up. This is because the rise in global average temperatures is governed by the laws of physics not the laws of people. When the stock of emissions in the atmosphere rises, atmospheric physics dictate the global average temperature will rise. If investors can manage investing amid the uncertainty of the US 10-year Treasury yield, they can deal with climate change that is a more predictable factor.  * ❌ Myth #3: Climate adaptation solutions have uncertain business models. ✔️ Fact #3: Many companies making climate adaptation solutions are mature 'boring' cash flow generating businesses. And the market has rewarded their shareholders. For e.g., RPM International, a US-based maker of flood-resilient building materials has outperformed the S&P 500 index by 5.5% per year on average over the last 25 years, doing better than Microsoft over that period. With global warming leading to increasing frequency and severity of  storms and floods, demand for its products will likely expand in the future. Boring is beautiful for investors. * I shared the above at my presentation during the climate adaptation workshop organised by the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative Regional Roundtable on Sustainable Finance -- and it transformed the audience's perspective on investing in climate adaptation. Many thanks to Diana Diaz Castro for the invitation and thoughtful workshop design that maximised engagement from the attendees. What are your thoughts on investing in the climate adaptation theme? Photo credit: Lin from AIGCC

The energy transition is a myth. That’s what energy historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz shares on The Great Simplification pod by Nate Hagens. He makes the case that no energy source in history has ever fully replaced an older one. Instead, they’ve stacked, layered on top of one another, to feed our growing economy. You can see this clearly in the chart below, which shows global primary energy consumption from the 1800s to today. Wood didn’t disappear when coal arrived. Coal didn’t disappear when oil arrived. Oil didn’t go away when we introduced natural gas and electricity. And now, renewables aren’t replacing fossil fuels, they’re simply being added to the mix. We’ve actually continued to use more of these older energy sources after newer ones arrived. Why? Because energy is inseparable from materials and the physical world. For example, Fressoz asserts that EVs are often framed as the solution to the environmental impacts of transportation, despite their fundamental reliance on fossil fuels. Here’s what he means: 1️⃣ Their electricity often comes from coal-fired grids (particularly in China where 60% of their electricity comes from coal).  2️⃣ They require steel, aluminum, graphite, copper, and many other materials to be manufactured.  3️⃣ They depend on car-centric infrastructure - roads and highways made of cement and asphalt - which are among the most carbon-intensive materials in the world. So what does Fressoz propose we do about this? Instead of just changing the source of our energy, we need to reduce both our energy and material use. That means prioritizing public transit over car-centric solutions. Rethinking our culture of overconsumption and instead (imo) investing in human relationships and community: the very things that social scientists, religious leaders, and mental health experts consistently point to as the foundation of a good life. Our team at Climate Action Club found this podcast ep so interesting that we’re hosting a dinner next Tuesday (the 29th) at Joyride Pizza (Yerba Buena Gardens) on this very topic. These are exactly the kinds of discussions we built this community for: not to change anyone’s mind, but to create safe spaces for sharing different perspectives, learning from one another, and committing to continuing the conversation. If you’d like to join us, the link to register is in the comments 🩷 Samantha Blodgett Anush Mattapalli Tom McLeod Abhinav Ramachandran Sevy Swift Anu Thirunarayanan Collin Ryder Daksh Aggarwal Frances McMillan Kathryn Walsh Kelsey Reed Lisa Imai Maggie Deng Lillian Liu Tilden Chao Margaret Li 🌎 David Goodman McKenna Weitzel Sunny Zhang Sarah H.