Vital Signs: a 3-point plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050

Every January Larry Fink, the head of the world’s largest funds manager, BlackRock, sends a letter to the chief executives of major public companies.

Planing to arrive at net-zero emissions by 2050.

This year’s letter focused on climate risk. “Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects,” Fink wrote. To put sustainability at the centre of its investment approach, he said, BlackRock would stop investing in companies that “present a high sustainability-related risk”.

Now business leaders – even big money managers – express opinions all the time, and major companies keep doing what they are doing. But this was different. 

Fink, who’s in charge of US$7 trillion (that’s not a typo – $7,000,000,000,000), says in his letter: “In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital.” 

Read the story from The Conversation by a Professor of Economics from the University of New South Wales, Richard Holden -  "Vital Signs: a 3-point plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.”

The new language of climate change: Trillions.

It didn’t seem that long ago that it was all about billions — billions of dollars of climate investments, billions of tons of carbon reductions and billions in new market opportunities. Billions of assets under management being screened for climate risk. All to stem billions more in environmental damage, GDP loss, natural capital savings and ecosystems decline. And probably a billion other things.

That was so last year.

Bye-bye, billions. It’s time for trillions to seize center stage.

Yes, trillions. With a T.

In the ramp-up to Climate Week, unfolding in hundreds of events across New York City over the next five days or so, there’s been a raft of reports, commitments and declarations touting big, big numbers. It’s a clear sign that the money side of climate change — both costs and opportunities — is rising in lockstep with a recognition of the stakes to people and the planet.

Read the story from GreenBiz by Joel Makower - “The new language of climate change: Trillions.”

Regional ‘Climate Guides’ to inform on-farm risk management

Climate variability is one of the biggest challenges in agriculture. One season too dry; the next too wet. From frost to heatwaves, each extreme has its own risk. While it is impossible to control the weather, a better understanding of climate risk can help primary producers minimise its potential to impact on their business. 

The Climate Guides are being prepared in consultation
 with local stakeholder across the 56 Australia’s Natural
Resource Management regions.

A new series of region-specific Climate Guides are being developed to give producers the information they need to understand their environmental assets and reduce business risk.

The guides are being developed by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO in collaboration with local stakeholders around the country. They will provide information on the local climate and its variability for each of the 56 Natural Resource Management regions across Australia. 

Each guide will give primary producers and regional communities facts about the likelihood, severity and duration of key weather variables that affect the resilience of their businesses and communities. 

Read the story from the Climate Kelpie Blog - “Regional ‘Climate Guides’ to inform on-farm risk management.”

It’s Time for the Business World to Declare a Climate Emergency

Following the lead of young people fomenting an Extinction Rebellion, the U.K. parliament just declared a climate emergency on May 1, and the governor of the Bank of England stated plainly that climate risk is an existential threat we can no longer ignore.

Yes, it's time for business to declare a climate emergency.

And that was before the recent UN report warning of the likely imminent extinction of 1 million species. The U.S. was one of 132 nations that signed off on the report. According to the panel’s chairman, the decline in biodiversity is eroding “the foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.” In short, the report says that we are killing things necessary for our own survival.

Some who prefer business as usual may think, or even hope, this global wave of attention generated by activists and scientists is a passing tremor that will soon be forgotten like others before them. Some believe we are witnessing a seismic shift, shaking the foundations of institutional power in recognition of the existential threat of climate change. I’m not sure.

Read the Medium story by Jay Coen Gilbert - “It’s Time for the Business World to Declare a Climate Emergency.”

Hostage to myopic self-interest: climate science is watered down under political scrutiny

Three decades ago when serious debate on human-induced climate change began globally, a great deal of statesmanship was on display. A preparedness to recognise that this was an issue which transcended nation states, ideologies and political parties. An issue which had to be addressed proactively in the long-term interests of humanity, even if the existential nature of climate risk was far less clear cut than it is today.

‘In the magical thinking of Australian policymakers, a pathway
 of gradual change, constructed over many decades in a
growing, prosperous, coal-fired world stretches enticingly before us.’

Then, as global institutions were put in place to take up this challenge and the extent of change this would impose on the fossil-fuel dominated world became more obvious, the forces of resistance mobilised. Today, despite the diplomatic triumph of the Paris climate agreement, debate around climate change policy has never been more dysfunctional, indeed Orwellian, particularly in Australia.

In his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell describes a double-speak totalitarian state where most of the population accepts “the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane.”

Orwell could have been writing about climate change and policymaking.

Read the comment  by Ian Dunlop on The Guardian - “Hostage to myopic self-interest: climate science is watered down under political scrutiny.”

Hostage to myopic self-interest: climate science is watered down under political scrutiny

Three decades ago when serious debate on human-induced climate change began globally, a great deal of statesmanship was on display. A preparedness to recognise that this was an issue which transcended nation states, ideologies and political parties. An issue which had to be addressed proactively in the long-term interests of humanity, even if the existential nature of climate risk was far less clear cut than it is today.

‘In the magical thinking of Australian policymakers, a
 pathway of gradual change, constructed over many
decades in a growing, prosperous, coal-fired
world stretches enticingly before us.’ 

Then, as global institutions were put in place to take up this challenge and the extent of change this would impose on the fossil-fuel dominated world became more obvious, the forces of resistance mobilised. Today, despite the diplomatic triumph of the Paris climate agreement, debate around climate change policy has never been more dysfunctional, indeed Orwellian, particularly in Australia.

Read the piece by Ian Dunlop on The Guardian - “Hostage to myopic self-interest: climate science is watered down under political scrutiny.”

Most super funds failing to disclose climate risk

The $2.3 trillion superannuation industry is so woeful in its disclosure of climate risk that trustees could be in breach of their legal duties.

Sixty of the 100 biggest super funds, or three out
 of five, have no disclosure of climate risk at all. 

Sixty of the 100 biggest super funds, or three out of five, have no disclosure of climate risk at all, according to the August report by Market Forces, an affiliate project of environmental group Friends of the Earth.

This includes large players such as retail fund Colonial First State, which represents 2.19 million members and $86.99 billion, and industry fund REST, with 1.96 million members and $41.52 billion under management.

Another 22 funds in the top 100 have inadequate disclosure – defined as a public position that mentions climate change, but fails to back it up with any discussion of how it's being handled in practical terms. Market Forces analyst and report author Daniel Gocher told Fairfax Media it was a "low bar" to be deemed as inadequate and there was a big gap between those making adequate disclosure and the rest.

Read the story in today’s Melbourne Age by Caitlin Fitzsimmons  - “Most super funds failing to disclose climate risk.”

Profitting from humanity's mistakes and inaction

Buying a house? OK, you’ve ordered a building inspection to check the condition of the house, but what about a “climate valuation” report to consider the impact of climate change?

This could be the new box to tick when buying property, with an Australian company planning to have climate valuation reports available by October.

Sydney-based company Climate Risk, said the climate valuation reports would provide a value impact assessment based on the risk of sea-level rise and flood inundation associated with climate change.

Read Jason Dowling’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “Climate change inspections may join building inspections as prerequisites for buyers.”

(Whatever people do, someone, somewhere profits, that is accumulates some money. Climate change is no different for among all the resultant chaos will be someone “turning a dollar”, as is the case with Climate Risk, which has created a legitimate role for itself, although it has capitalized on the error of others, broadly humanity – Robert McLean.)