Alternative approaches to climate impact management

“Climate stress-testing for water systems” A climate stress test today and other “bottom-up” methods have become an increasingly prominent alternative to common “top-down” approaches for climate impact and risk assessment. While traditional “top-down” methods start with GCMs and RCMs, the initial tier of future hydroclimatic simulation, “bottom-up” approaches by contrast involve more in-depth system performance evaluations to determine existing vulnerabilities.  A further principle for this level of examination is the importance of system stakeholders in defining values, legitimizing key modeling decisions and in helping to define system performance and unacceptable behavior. Such stress testing methods are well suited to identify policy options that are robust under a wide range of future hydrologic conditions, rather than a solution that appears optimal under current projections, BUT is vulnerable if future hydrology unfolds differently than expected. Over recent years, hydrologic conditions have caught many in the water industry by surprise as the rapidity with which hydrologic regimes are seemingly shifting and the magnitudes of those changes have been quite alarming.    In a complex world where water decisions are made in the context of wider socio-ecological systems, stress testing and other bottom-up methods can support decisions that are not only robust to future uncertainty but also regarded as legitimate by affected communities. For further discussion, please see Fowler et al. (2024) in WIRES Water, “Climate stress testing for water systems: Review and guide for applications”

Rethinking #ClimatePolicy: The Power of Tailored Approaches 🌍🏭🧩 Climate policy effectiveness isn't a simple yes or no question. The real challenge lies in understanding which policies work under specific conditions. 🔍 A recent study in Science offers crucial insights into this complex issue, analysing approximately 1,500 climate policies across 41 countries from 1998 to 2022. The research, led by Annika Stechemesser and colleagues, identified 63 successful policy interventions that significantly reduced emissions. Their findings reveal that tailored policy mixes often outperform single-instrument approaches. In the transport sector of developed economies, combining pricing with subsidies was highly effective, while in developing economies, regulation was most powerful, both alone and in combination with other policies. 🚗💨 In the electricity sector of developed economies, pricing was key in 50% of effective interventions, while in developing economies, standalone subsidies were most effective. These findings underscore the importance of context-specific policy design in driving meaningful emission reductions. 🏙️🏭 The study's nuanced approach provides a solid foundation for more effective climate action. However, I believe its implications extend beyond environmental outcomes to the realm of political feasibility. 🏛️🤝 In my view, these tailored policy mixes may offer a promising path through the political gridlock that often impedes climate action. By incorporating diverse policy instruments - from market-based mechanisms to regulations and incentives - these mixes provide multiple points for negotiation between differing ideological positions. 🔧🎯 Consider how this approach might bridge the gap between left and right. Conservatives might favour pricing mechanisms for their market-based approach, while progressives could support strong regulatory measures. A well-designed mix that includes both could potentially satisfy both camps, leading to a more politically viable solution. 🌈🤝 Furthermore, the sector-specific nature of effective policy mixes aligns well with the diverse interests represented in most political systems. Policies tailored to the buildings sector might appeal to urban representatives, while measures targeting industry could gain support from legislators in manufacturing-heavy districts. This granularity allows for more precise addressing of constituent concerns, potentially reducing overall opposition and fostering compromise. 🏙️🏭🤔 In a world grappling with polarization, could this approach offer a pragmatic way forward on climate action? By providing a framework for compromise without sacrificing effectiveness, tailored policy mixes might be key to unlocking sustained, impactful climate policy. 🔑🌱 What's your perspective on this? How might we leverage these insights to overcome political barriers to climate action? Link to study: https://lnkd.in/ehH8tHxf

🌍 Disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation strategies are increasingly urgent. To meet this challenge, the 𝐂𝐑𝐌-𝐍𝐛𝐒 Toolkit has been developed to help countries embed nature-based solutions. It brings together environmental knowledge, policy alignment, practical interventions, inclusive governance, and integrated planning. Through this approach, it provides a clear pathway for building resilience while safeguarding ecosystems and human well-being. 𝘌𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸. 𝐓𝐨𝐨𝐥 1: 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 - Countries collect and compile data on environment, climate, hazards, and vulnerabilities to build a risk profile. - Using IPCC’s risk approach and Indigenous knowledge, the stocktake highlights where NbS can deliver the strongest impact. 𝐓𝐨𝐨𝐥 2: 𝐍𝐛𝐒 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠: - National plans and strategies are screened for NbS references through targeted keyword checks. - This process identifies entry points, exposes policy gaps, and ensures new NbS reinforce existing frameworks. 𝐓𝐨𝐨𝐥 3: 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐍𝐛𝐒 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 - The toolkit provides categories and options for selecting NbS tailored to hazards and ecosystems. - Selected measures balance risk reduction with co-benefits such as biodiversity, resilience, and livelihoods. 𝐓𝐨𝐨𝐥 4: 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 - Countries are supported to mobilize stakeholders across institutions, sectors, and governance levels. - It promotes transparent participation that empowers communities and ensures NbS are inclusive and fair. 𝐓𝐨𝐨𝐥 5: 𝐍𝐛𝐒 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 - Countries are guided to embed NbS within DRR strategies, adaptation plans, and cross-sector policies. - Global examples and templates illustrate how integration turns scattered efforts into coherent strategies. 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 - A checklist aligns the five tools in sequence to help countries track their progress. - It ensures a logical, stepwise approach that moves from risk profiling to policy integration. In essence, the CRM-NbS Toolkit is a structured pathway to mainstream nature-based solutions in #disaster and #climaterisk management. By moving from stocktake to integrated planning, countries can build resilience, safeguard ecosystems, and protect people’s well-being against climate change.

Even the world’s largest, most sophisticated investors—those that understand financial climate risk deeply—are structurally constrained from financing the transformations needed to reduce that risk at its source. Simon Mundy's recent Financial Times article on Norway’s $1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund (Norges Bank Investment Management) is a powerful illustration. NBIM’s own modeling suggests that climate change could wipe out 19% of the value of its U.S. equity holdings. Yet its mandate—to maximize returns with reasonable risk—limits its ability to “more aggressively support climate change mitigation.” This isn’t a critique of NBIM. It’s a reminder that asset owners, no matter how committed or informed, cannot - on their own - deliver the systemic transformations that meaningful climate action requires. There is a better approach: coordinated, multi-actor strategies that are both more effective and entirely doable. Systemic transformations—redesigning energy systems, electrifying transport, decarbonizing industry—require multi-actor coordination, institutional arrangements, and financing tools that go far beyond conventional portfolio strategies. Moreover, two-thirds of future emissions are projected to come from emerging and developing economies. But most institutional capital is not flowing there, constrained by high perceived risk and low credit ratings. Mitigating climate risk requires unlocking affordable finance in EMDEs. Financial institutions can and should be core partners in confronting planetary and financial climate risk. But today’s dominant approaches—corporate target-setting, exclusions, portfolio realignment, etc.—are not enough. The more effective strategy for large asset owners who understand climate risk is to work with governments, MDBs, utilities, and real-economy actors to co-design and co-finance system-wide transition pathways. Another basic reminder is that finance follows markets, not the other way around. When coordinated transition strategies reduce fossil fuel demand, improve the risk-adjusted returns of low-carbon alternatives, and de-risk investments through mechanisms like long-term offtake agreements or expanded credit enhancements, capital will follow. Pressure on financial institutions alone will yield, at best, inherently modest and limited results. Some argue that in the absence of stronger political leadership, incremental steps by financial institutions are better than nothing. But in many parts of the world, the real bottleneck isn’t political will—it’s the structural constraints of the financial system and the lack of coordinated engagement among economic actors. In developed economies, much can be done through subnational governments, public utilities, regulators, and public procurement, even without federal action. What’s missing is not intent but practical, multi-actor coordination—and that is entirely within reach. https://lnkd.in/eueSRXqt

🌍 There are no silver bullets for climate action. 🌍 We waste a HUGE amount of time in either/or debates: reductions or removals, nature or tech, conservation or restoration, regulation or markets. But the climate crisis demands all of the above—and it demands it fast. As the wonderful Ashley N. P. Allen and I discuss on the latest episode of Navigating Net Zero, companies like Mars and Oatly show us what’s possible when we take a portfolio approach and keep all the options on the table. ✅ Rapid emissions cuts where they’re most feasible ✅ Strategic investments in supply-chain transformation ✅ Partnerships with farmers, policymakers, and local communities ✅ Exploration of market-based tools that de-risk and accelerate change There are lessons in this for policy leaders and decisionmakers ahead of #ClimateWeekNYC and #COP30: ⤵️ Pair deep near-term reductions with high-integrity market-based investments, durable removals, and enabling policies. ⚒️ Diversify tools and timelines, report transparently, and adapt as evidence evolves. ⏳ Above all—ACT NOW. Don’t let perfection stand in the way of real and meaningful action today. The cost of continued delay is unacceptable, and these either/or debates are fiddling while the world burns. A portfolio approach is how we deliver impact now and build resilience for tomorrow. It was a pleasure to speak with my longtime colleague and friend, Ashley, who has pioneered high-ambition climate action portfolios at name-brand companies with footprints larger than many countries. 🎧 Listen to our conversation and if you enjoy it please give us a like and subscribe! https://lnkd.in/dn2VHKf5 #NavigatingNetZero #ClimateAction #NetZero #Sustainability #ClimateWeekNYC