Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’

Global warming and climate change is already here, striking countries across the world with increasing severity. It impacts every part of the globe, every community, every business, and every person.

http://www.wowogallery.com/13iqm72 With decades of climate change denial, suppression, and – ultimately – climate policy failure both domestically and abroad, can we break the cycle?[1] The answer is yes, but climate change cannot be solved by governments alone. Additional leadership voices are required. 

https://manabernardes.com/2024/1t9shxgady As a young person growing up with all this happening around me, what frustrates me most is knowing that we could have tackled this problem years ago. However, we paid no heed. We belittled, shamed and undermined researchers and scientists who spoke about this issue. We called it a myth, a make-believe problem. Now, we’re scrambling to fix the problem, desperately trying to beat the clock, racing against time.


– Victory Luke, 16 year old student, The Irish Times[2]

The solution necessitates collective action – building broad coalitions across countries, the political spectrum, and public-private partnerships (i.e. business, academia, NGOs, and individuals)[3] – and, to be successful, must include the leadership of business leaders and their Boards. Why? Because business leadership that is able to focus on long-term value creation and business sustainability[4] may help to transcend the short-term transitory nature of politics[5] influenced by industry lobbying, special interest groups, short election cycles, short-term economic gain, and the inevitable changes in governments, priorities, personnel, and knowledge.

https://serenityspaonline.com/f58cfrh Climate change is the “crisis of our time” and people are becoming increasingly disappointed with party politics as usual. There is a growing public awareness and constituency worried about an increasingly unstable world, and they want honest, practical leaders who acknowledge reality – the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change – and are ready to reasonably and thoughtfully address the climate crisis.[6] 

https://therepairstore.ca/df9r2l4fo6 Climate change is everyone’s business and business needs to be a part of the solution. … Experts agree that the corporate sector has a vital role to play [… particularly in countries where] the political will from the government is falling behind the vision and readiness of some companies.


– Irene Banos Ruiz, Deutsche Welle (DW)[7]

https://gungrove.com/91v654sr5 Climate change – and weaning the world off fossil fuels and the greenhouse gases they generate – is a global, multi-decade challenge that needs solutions and input from all stakeholders. It is a global problem requiring a global solution, and today’s innovative business leaders are not only uniquely placed – they have the leadership, strategic management, and change management skillsets and resources to drive collaborative change on a global scale. This type of corporate leadership and action aligns naturally with business risk management, long-term value creation and sustainability (and the corporate value chain), corporate strategy and purpose, and the business logic of strong environmental, social and governance practices generally.[8]  With strong leadership from business (as well as the legal industry), broad coalitions supporting appropriate climate change advocacy can build a credible path forward – not just to slow the earth’s warming but to reach “drawdown”, that point in time when greenhouse gases in the atmosphere peak and begin to decline[9] – and “spur economic innovation, growth and advance human vitality”.[10]

Buy Carisoprodol Overnight Delivery The transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy is not only a pathway to manage climate impacts – “playing offence” to reduce emissions and “playing defence” to cope with an altered environment[11] –  but is also as a pathway to prosperity and increased competitiveness.

At the World Bank Group, we know it doesn’t have to be like this. We believe it is possible to reduce emissions and deliver jobs and economic opportunity. … Many projects and policies offer the opportunity to control CO2 and SLCP [short-lived climate pollutants] emissions simultaneously; doing so can deliver both local socioeconomic benefits and global climate benefits, and reduce the net cost of action to mitigate climate change.


– The World Bank[12]

https://gungrove.com/z2iqeu3jh91 Introduction

https://equinlab.com/2024/01/18/hyt6uenot One of the biggest risks facing societies, economies, and businesses around the world is climate change. Climate change is a truly global issue: the atmosphere does not differentiate between national borders and where green-house gases are emitted or where they are reduced.[13] It is a fundamental threat to sustainable economic development, with devastating impacts on agriculture and food supply, water resources, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human health[14]:[15]

“Across the world, businesses, scientific institutions, investors, and governments are effectively unanimous in recognizing the urgent need for action on climate change. The science has made it inescapably clear that business as usual leads to disaster. Many debates remain over the best path forward, but the basic case for action has become unassailable.”

https://www.justoffbase.co.uk/uncategorized/8p7rfohfxr The sense of urgency on climate has never been higher than now. We are in a serious crisis, and we are already feeling the impact of climate change across the world. The science of climate change is settled – we know it is happening and we know why. Climate change, once a statistical scientific prediction “is now happening as a matter of universally experienced fact” – rising sea levels, changing weather patterns and extreme weather, pressure on water and food, political and security risks, human health risks, and an increasingly adverse impact on wildlife and ecosystems – and this is just the beginning.[16] 

https://sieterevueltas.net/khmg6l00r8 It is 2019. Our oceans are polluted and so is our air, we have more plastic than we know what to do with, and our planet is burning. Is this really the 21st century?


– The Irish Times[17]

Nevertheless, we continue to watch political leaders waffle on the subject. It appears that the very people elected to deal with the issue are punting or otherwise undermining required climate policy, solutions, goalposts and timetables that may actually lead us toward a more sustainable future.[18]

https://manabernardes.com/2024/qyruck4 The reality is that meaningful global and national environmental regulations and policy framework are nowhere on the horizon,[19] and the absence of credible policies on climate change and energy have left the corporate sector and its business leaders with little choice but to act.[20]

And business leaders – and some legal leaders[21] – have a visibility and media access that is unparalleled in history.[22] Such leaders are well-positioned to educate the public and policymakers that climate policy is critical to address and manage climate change impacts and for sustainable long-term economic growth. And this leadership would provide a much-needed counterweight to the special interests, greenhouse gas emitting industries, and big-money politics that have not been shy about maintaining the status quo.[23]

http://www.wowogallery.com/ps4kx89 But why should business and legal leaders step into the political vacuum that is currently supporting “maximum gain for a few” over “minimum risk for all”?[24]

https://www.ngoc.org.uk/uncategorized/future-events/0mzg0pgtq Scientists have reached consensus about the consequences of climate change at the same time that corporations have achieved unprecedented political power. … [H]istory will judge CEOs not just on their stewardship of firm growth, but also on whether they effectively used their clout to address one of the greatest societal challenges of our time.


– Michael Toffel and Auden Schendler, The Climate Needs Aggressive CEO Leadership, Harvard Business School[25]

The first part of the answer is that companies that get their strategy right on “climate change” will find numerous opportunities to both profit and create social good on a global scale. Today “Smart companies” are not only using environmental and leadership strategies to address climate change and build a competitive advantage for their organizations, but they are also looking to build long-term business sustainability and burnish their corporate brand and reputation (to project corporate citizenship and social responsibility). This builds trust – the true currency of business[26] – and strengthens an organization’s social licence to operate.[27]

There are good economic (as well as environmental) reasons for corporations to step up their climate change efforts. The New Climate Economy’s 2018 report found significant economic benefits available to the private sector in the transition to a low-carbon economy (including reduction in costs, return on investment from introducing renewable energy sources and low-carbon technologies to their organization, and reduced dependency on uncontrollable costs). Companies in the CDP Climate Leadership Index – made up of companies taking the strongest climate action – outperformed their peers in stock market value and financial performance.[28] In addition, CDP has noted that almost half “of the world’s 500 biggest companies say that climate change could generate more than $2.1 trillion of potential new business”.[29] A recent report from French financial giant BNP Pariabas suggests that “renewable energy is already more efficient than fossil fuels”, in that “a one-dollar investment in solar power will yield six to seven times as much useful energy as a one-dollar investment in oil over the course of the investment’s lifetime”.[30] And, according to the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate:[31]

“[T]he economic impact of ambitious climate action across key systems – cities, energy, food and land use, water, and industry [-] … would generate more than 65 million new low-carbon jobs in 2030, and avoid 700,000 premature deaths. … In total, ‘bold action’ on climate could net the world $26 trillion in benefits; that’s a conservative estimate. …

https://www.prehistoricsoul.com/u6wyegj12 ‘[T]he benefits … of this new growth path are enormous, and it’s not just environmental … it’s economic, it’s fiscal, it’s social opportunities, it’s development opportunities’.”

https://therepairstore.ca/jeojpor The growth story of the 21st century will unlock unprecedented opportunities and deliver a strong, sustainable, inclusive global economy. The benefits of climate action are greater than ever before, while the costs of inaction continue to mount. It is time for a decisive shift to a new climate economy.


– The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate[32]

https://modaypadel.com/nd1gbbxyg6o Change is inevitable, and if business leaders do not play a visible constructive role – working to bring about a responsible, low-carbon, low-climate risk, sustainable economy – they will miss a key opportunity while exacerbating financial, operational and reputational risks for their own organizations. And this takes us to the second part of the answer why business leaders should step into the political vacuum. 

Looking at the issue from a position of self-interest: severe climate change poses physical, economic, reputational, and strategic risks to business. With trillions of dollars at stake, some of the world’s biggest companies – from the S&P Global 100 companies to tech, from retail, manufacturing, and agriculture to finance, etc. – are bracing for the prospect that climate change will substantially affect their bottom lines within the next five years.[33]  Under pressure from shareholders and regulators, companies are increasingly disclosing the specific financial impacts they could face as a result of climate change, such as extreme weather that could disrupt their supply chains (i.e. supply chains have grown complex and global, and as these links have multiplied so have their points of possible failure). A growing number of companies are recognizing the operational, physical, and financial threats of climate change on their businesses – extreme droughts, flooding, and storms alone create substantial damages, sowing financial chaos and upending businesses from small shops to multinational organizations.[34] The CEO of Unilever turned heads when he said climate change cost his company more than $400 million a year.[35]

Order Xanax Cod Global warming is fuelling more extremes everywhere – from increased severity of weather risks, to changes in precipitation and weather patterns, to rising mean temperatures – with more “500 year floods” (epic rainfall and flooding), out of control wildfires, heatwaves and droughts (a quarter of humanity faces looming water crises), violent storms (ranging from hurricanes and tornedos to dust, rain, hail, snow and ice),[36] and the new phenomenon of mircroplastics in our rain, snow and drinking water (leading to recent headlines that “it’s raining plastic”[37]):[38]

https://serenityspaonline.com/5scsarevh “[I]t is imperative to consider the impact of climate change on business operations, and potential impacts on sustainability. … Climate change has environmental, social, political, and economic repercussions … and ha[s] direct implications for commerce globally. … [For example, c]limate change will have a domino effect on agricultural and production operations. … [A] reduction in the supply of agricultural products and scarcity of water may lead to a reduced food supply and threats to food security, a rapid global increase in commodity prices, social and political unrest, inflation, and finally economic slowdown. With such a scenario, business will not be as usual.

Business will face challenges as never before if climate change impact is not better understood and no steps are taken towards appropriate solutions. Now is the time for corporate leaders to rethink very carefully their business models, business priorities, and business sustainability, and to consider what climate change may mean for their objectives. How can companies minimise the impact of climate change, lower their risk, adapt to the change, and take advantage of the opportunities that are available?

Cheap Xanax In Mexico Acknowledging climate change … and recognising the need to adapt, involve bold decisions by business.” 

https://gungrove.com/0eqvv9d [The U.S.] government’s own newly released report on climate change … warns that unless significant changes are made, we could be facing catastrophic and irreversible changes to our planet by 2050. When asked about the report, [U.S. President] Trump simply said, ‘I don’t believe it’.


– Patagonia’s CEO is donating company’s entire $10M Trump tax cut to fight climate change[39]

https://www.ngoc.org.uk/uncategorized/future-events/e0zxcz0sb Climate change is already impacting business, their supply chains, operations, workforce, and markets.[40] The world’s largest companies have identified higher rates of risks and pressure in respect to climate-related issues, including increased Board oversight, stakeholder scrutiny, reputational risk,[41] and financial risk.[42] In this environment, the U.S. military has also identified climate change as a “threat multiplier”: meaning the geo-political stressors already present domestically and around the world are being amplified and worsened by climate change.[43]  The UN has warned that climate crisis disasters are happening at the rate of one a week across the world.[44] In 2018 alone, the U.S. experienced 14 weather and climate disasters, each with losses exceeding $1 billion and together totaling approximately $91 billion in damages.[45]

Climate change is a recognized and identifiable cost to the economy of trillions of dollars as we move forward into the 21st century, damaging everything from infrastructure to ecosystems to agricultural production to human health and economic growth.[46] Goldman Sachs released a report in September 2019 noting that climate change will “affect economic activity, damage infrastructure – from buildings to transportation to water and waste-management systems – and disproportionately harm vulnerable residents”.[47] In addition, climate change poses a systemic risk to the global financial system:[48]

https://equinlab.com/2024/01/18/wkvj3dyc6 “What central bankers – the world’s preeminent economic decision-makers since the 1980s – are beginning to worry about is the potential for climate change to trigger [a] financial crisis [similar to the 2008 global financial crisis].

Buy Alprazolam Canada They have been relatively late to the problem. Mark Carney – formerly of Goldman Sachs and the Canadian central bank, now governor of the Bank of England – can take credit for first raising the issue in financial circles at an after-dinner speech at Lloyd’s of London in September 2015. Two years later in Paris, leading central bankers and regulators founded the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), which aims to throw the weight of key financial institutions behind the goals of the [international] Paris climate agreement. The membership of the NGFS now includes most of the central banks of the G-20, such as the European Central Bank and the People’s Bank of China.

Buy Valium In Canada Private financial actors have also joined the green finance bandwagon. At the One Planet Summit in New York City in 2018, 23 leading global banks, eight of the top 10 global asset managers, the world’s leading pension funds and insurers, the two preeminent shareholder advisory service companies, and other major financial firms – which are together responsible for managing almost $100 trillion in assets – committed themselves to the transparency principles of the blue-ribbon Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, which was launched by Carney in his capacity as head of the Financial Stability Board … .

It is telling that the only financial authority not to be involved in these initiatives is the U.S. Federal Reserve, the most powerful central bank in the global financial system. But even if it were to come aboard, the most critical question would remain whether the green agenda of the world’s central banks is adequate to the challenge of mitigating the effects of the climate crisis – and perhaps holding it within manageable bounds. The central banks have the powers to be a major part of the climate response. As of yet, their response is defensive, focusing on managing financial risks. The rest of us have no choice but to hope that they move into a more proactive mode in time. …

https://manabernardes.com/2024/8yq2mzqls7 If the world is to cope with climate change, policymakers will need to pull every lever at their disposal.”

Buy Green Xanax Bars Online The good news is that “global-warming denial is becoming the fringe view it always deserved to be. It is not just” scientists and “environmentalists who want to move on climate change”, many corporate leaders and their Boards are now “increasingly calling for action” as well:[49]

“Declaring that “climate change is a major threat to the U.S. economy,” a group of chief executives [in May 2019] teamed up with several prominent environmental groups to call on President Trump and Congress to “put in place a long-term federal policy as soon as possible to protect against the worst impacts.” The group, called the CEO Climate Dialogue, endorsed cutting the country’s planet-warming greenhouse-gas emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050. That goal is too modest; the United Nations warns that world governments must get to net-zero emissions by mid-century. But just reaching the 80 percent goal would require a huge transformation in the U.S. economy — and also on the part of some of the big companies calling for it. …

The environmentalist groups that joined these firms, including the Environmental Defense Fund and the Nature Conservancy, risk criticism for associating with big energy companies calling for an emissions goal that falls short of the U.N. target — not to mention the extreme demands of the Green New Deal advocates. But those who really care about the problem should not turn away would-be allies, if their desire to move in the right direction is sincere.

The CEO Climate Dialogue is not the first corporate group to demand tougher government climate policy, nor is its proposal the most detailed out there. But the fact that the group’s rollout seems almost worth taking for granted is itself notable. “The fact that there are several business coalitions working to advance federal climate legislation demonstrates that demand for U.S. climate action is growing, and that a wide range of companies are keen to drive progress in Congress,” the group argues.

This trend is explainable in part because the science — and therefore the need to act — is increasingly undeniable. But it is also in the long-term interest of major corporations to plan for the inevitable transition to come. Addressing global warming can be an orderly, careful process, or it can be an expensive emergency effort thrown together once the consequences start getting really dire — when time will be short and options few. “Business needs and supports predictable and effective climate policies including an economy-wide price on carbon,” the group said. That is the right policy. These companies can prove their sincerity by throwing their lobbying power behind it — not just issuing statements.

As the evidence piles up and more voices admit the need to act, it becomes all the more astonishing that [U.S. President] Trump ignores climate change and celebrates his administration’s drive to tear up environmental rules. He ought to listen to the corporate executives who are demanding a very different policy.”

[T]he Paris agreement … represents the first-ever worldwide accord on a pragmatic path to tackle climate change, and the United States under President Barack Obama led the charge. That is why Trump’s threat to withdraw from the agreement, if he follows through, would be a self-inflicted wound that punished all countries—none more than the United States.


– Rick Duke, Foreign Policy[50]

As some nations drag their feet on enacting environmental policies[51] – or are slowed down by politics (i.e. rejection of climate science; appointment of lobbyists and executives of greenhouse gas emitting industries at top levels of government; reversal of environmental protections and regulations at the behest of ‘big money’ special interests),[52] – cities worldwide (which account for 55% of the world’s population[53]) are taking matters in their own hands. As more local governments across the world join the frontlines of climate change, three of the largest and most influential cities in the world – London, Paris and New York City – have now declared a climate emergency in an effort to mobilize local and national responses to address global warming[54]:[55]

“What do places like Shropshire (United Kingdom), Hawkes Bay (New Zealand), Sydney (Australia), New York (USA), and Krakow (Poland) have in common? They are just some of the 822 (and counting) cities, councils and jurisdictions worldwide to have declared a climate emergency. …

The 822 jurisdictions who have declared a climate emergency thus far contain over 136 million people and those numbers are expected to rise as governments begin to recognize the real threat posed by climate change.” 

[Brazil’s far-right populist leader, Jair] Bolsonaro has been dubbed the ‘Trump of the Tropics’ …  The similarities clearly extend to climate policy — Trump famously labeled climate change a Chinese hoax, pulled out of the Paris agreement on climate change, and recently presented a “carbon regulation” plan that could actually increase emissions. … A February report … found that 18 out of the 21 largest European far-right parties are either generally indifferent to climate action or outright oppose it.


– Vox[56]

In Canada, supporting the country’s commitment to meet the international Paris Agreement’s emissions targets, the House of Commons passed a motion declaring a national climate emergency despite the conservative party voting as a block against the motion.[57]  Conscious of ongoing public concern, many of these ideological conservative parties in the U.S., UK, Australia, the EU and Canada[58] appear to be embracing the political “climate change two-step” – or playing an even more remarkable game in which “they make unprecedented promises of action while they actively reverse the essential policies of mitigation in practice”:[59]

“This may seem like shrewd politics – it lulls voters into a (false) state of security while appeasing the radical free-market, neoconservative and climate-change denying faction of the parliamentary Conservative Party – but it is lethally irresponsible. It also sets a dangerous precedent: even democratic governments apparently now think little of actively misdirecting their electorate in regard to the most critical policy challenge of our time. …

The right of the Conservative Party has tended to designate climate change a socialist-conspiracy-by-stealth. …  ‘The right is climate sceptic or ‘climate go-slow’ because it is anti-regulation, pro-market, anti-state, anti-EU, anti-taxes, so it is very hard to construct a ‘conversation’ or ‘narrative’ where positive action [by the state] fits comfortably.’ But the preferment of dogma in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence is shocking, as is the refusal to offer certainty to the business sector around investment and to galvanise the wider institutional transition to a zero-carbon economy.”

When elected officials don’t own this crucial responsibility, other leaders in society must step into the vacuum. 


– Amy Edmondson, Harvard Business School[60]

In today’s environment, it appears that corporations and businesses have to be far more democratic than democratically elected officials.[61] At a time when the political class of countries across the Western world appear to be catering to ever-narrower slices of the electorate, businesses and their leadership teams must be responsive to a broader swath of society in order to be successful. Not surprisingly, properly addressing and appealing to the widest possible swath of people – and strengthening their corporate brands – is good for business. And, while “inclusiveness” appears to be “not good politics” for politicians in this day of polarization and micro-targeting, it is “good business” for corporations.[62]

And business leaders are increasingly being judged not just on their stewardship of their organizations, “but also on whether they effectively used their clout to address” climate change, “one of the greatest societal challenges of our time”.[63] Across the world (from the U.S. to the EU, and Australia to Canada) society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose.[64] Two recent reports, one from Cone Communications and the other from CEDA (Committee for Economic Development of Australia), noted that 63% of Americans and 78% of Australians are looking to business to speak out on issues of national importance and “drive social and environmental change moving forward”.[65]

[C]ompanies with high levels of purpose outperform the market by 5%–7% per year … . They also grow faster and have higher profitability. However, the link between purpose and profitability is present only if senior management has been successful in diffusing that sense of purpose further down in the organization, especially in middle management, and in providing strategic clarity throughout the organization on how to achieve that purpose.


– 181 Top CEOs Have Realized Companies Need a Purpose Beyond Profit, Harvard Business Review[66]

Leadership, purpose, and long-term business sustainability and value creation is now required from business leaders, whether in the form of “statesmanship” or a more restricted worldview of an “enlightened self-interest”. This is based on societal expectations (of a larger social role for corporations), and the understanding by corporate leaders and their Boards that the well-being of our businesses is ultimately determined by: (a) the well-being of the society and communities within which they operate, and (b) the commitment to lead their organizations for the benefit of all the corporation’s stakeholders as opposed to just the shareholder constituency (i.e. shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, and communities).[67]  The way forward: “the company’s” and societal “health – not its shareholders’ wealth – should be the primary concern of those who manage corporations. That may sound like a small change, but it would make companies less vulnerable”,[68] as companies with an eye on their “triple bottom line” – economic, environmental and social sustainability – build trust and outperform their less demanding peers over the long-term[69]:[70]

“As stakeholder expectations rise, an inauthentic or uneven commitment to citizenship can quickly damage a company’s reputation, undermine its sales, and limit its ability to attract talent. For organizations, a new question is becoming vital: When we look in the mirror held up by society, do we like what we see?”

While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders. We commit to: … Supporting the communities in which we work. We respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses.


– Excerpt from ‘Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation’, Published by the Business Roundtable, August 19, 2019[71]

Climate change impacting organizations across the U.S., the UK, Australia, Canada, the EU, and across the world continues to accelerate. Organizations with purposeful leaders that strategically address and adapt to these disruptive and transformative changes will prosper, and those organizations that do not will become less relevant with each passing year. Leadership and staying relevant is the key to success, but how this is to be accomplished is the question that must be addressed by all organizations and their executive leadership teams.

While some companies may still think of global warming as a simple ‘corporate social responsibility’ issue, today’s business leaders and their Boards need to approach the issue in the same manner they would with any other strategic threat or opportunity. Today’s leaders must have the training and understanding to think strategically, more systemically, they need to think in much bigger, more complex ways to ‘connect the dots’. That means utilizing a structured ‘strategic management approach’ – that embraces strategy formulation, change management, implementation and evaluation, and recognizes the value of emergent (entrepreneurial) thinking – to provide the organization’s overall and purposeful direction critical for its long-term sustainable success.[72]

Strategic management will need to play a more critical role in organizations today and going forward if leadership teams are to adeptly anticipate, and skillfully lead and manage climate change and its opportunities and threats. For those organizations and senior business leaders that have not adopted a structured strategic management approach, this transition is critical; particularly given the rapid pace of change and increased uncertainty now facing organization’s across the world.[73]

The ‘3.5% rule’: how a small minority can change the world. … [W]hile 3.5% is a small minority, such a level of active participation means many more people tacitly agree with the cause. 


– BBC News[74]

https://mmopage.com/news/b7n6a6ca3 The Politics of Climate Change: business leadership and strategy required as many conservative political parties become outliers in an otherwise emerging consensus

It is not just the climate crisis, but also the current societal condition — the political inability to make anything happen across partisan lines — that feed into people’s despair.[75] This is the world we live in:[76]

“Punishing heat waves, catastrophic floods, huge fires and climate conditions so uncertain that children took to the streets en masse [in September 2019] in global protests to demand action.

But this is also the world we live in: A pantheon of world leaders who have deep ties to the industries that are the biggest sources of planet-warming emissions, are hostile to protests, or use climate science denial to score political points.”

These are times of great division, as the political situation in the U.S., the UK, Australia, the EU, and Canada makes clear. Not coincidentally, these are also times of great economic, cultural and social unease and disruption.  Within this polarized and partisan environment the “science of climate change” – although apolitical by definition (as with all science) – has “become mired in a political battle royale”.[77] 

Climate denial is complex, but a key piece of the issue is that many people benefit from the status quo, in the short term at least. Addressing climate change threatens business models rooted in a fossil fuel economy. It threatens ways of life, and that leads to vehement opposition. As a result, solving climate change is not just a technological challenge. In fact, much of the technology is already available. It’s a political challenge as well.


– Ben Soltoff, Yale Center for Business and the Environment[78]

Many “conservative politicians seem oblivious” to the threat of climate change, “or are willing to put” big-money “politics ahead of people and the planet”.[79] This despite the fact that even the international order of geological scientists – not your usual climate scientists of climatologists, oceanographers, astrophysicists, historians,[80] etc. – have now recognized a new geologic era in which we now live, the Anthropocene epoch, this period of time during which human activity has permanently change the planet and become the dominant global influence on the climate and environment:[81]

“After the ice age of the late Pleistocene, and the culture-nurturing comfort of the Holocene, the Age of Man looks to be the End of Man. Perhaps in very short order.

The Anthropocene is an old idea, dating perhaps to the first atomic bomb, given fresh scientific imprimatur this spring. More than 500 million years after life took hold on earth, humans are having such a drastic effect on it that we are now the dominant geologic force. This designation comes not from the usual concerned voices seeking recognition from distracted media and political elites, but from a key body within the international union of geological scientists. As these folks like to say: rocks don’t lie.”

Climate change is damaging economies, devastating populations, compounding resource scarcity, and dramatically impacting the cost of doing business. So for both environmental and business reasons, it is imperative that business leaders take action. At the same time it is also likely that at some point more aggressive climate policies will be enforced by more enlightened government bodies on an international level, such that – from a business strategic and leadership standpoint – addressing climate change now will serve to promote long-term business sustainability. Further, studies show that consumers want to support companies actively building a better world. Climate action offers companies excellent “storytelling potential” to be used in marketing initiatives to ensure their brands are meaningful and relevant to consumers because they align around shared values.[82] 

Climate change is one of the biggest risks facing businesses, economies and societies around the world. The effects of climate change are already being felt – with implications for a business’s strategy, reputation and resilience. … Mitigating climate change can’t be done by business alone – but it definitely can’t be done without business.


– CPA Canada, Businesses urged to take steps to respond to climate change[83]

The shift has been underway for the last couple of years that climate change is a problem, driven by the trifecta of mounting scientific urgency, growing public concern, and investor pressure. Institutional investors and strategic business leaders are working with policymakers and companies alike to do more to fight climate change, including phasing out thermal coal power and fossil fuel subsidies, setting a price for carbon emissions, and providing increased transparency in respect to environmental, social and governance data and risks (as that pushes industry to be its very best).[84]

As a result – particularly with the current U.S. Administration’s retreat on climate policy under the authority of President Trump and his conservative political party – corporate leadership is emerging as a central arena.[85] And corporate leadership is generally uniting and supporting the science of climate change,[86] with business leaders and their Boards starting to step up to fill the leadership void on climate policy.[87]

In a time of political unrest, consumers [are] looking beyond government to address key social and environmental issues. [And,] consumers reward value-aligned brands.


– 2017 Cone Communications CSR Study: Consumers Want Brands That Share Their Values & Beliefs[88]

Although “older thinking” influenced by the fossil fuel industry and its political network “has held that economic growth and environmental protection are at odds with one another”, the “modernist approach holds that the two are aligned — that using clean energy technologies is resulting in more efficient operations as well as lower emissions and enhanced brands”. Currently, “48% of the Fortune 500 and 63% of the Fortune 100” companies “are vowing to cut their greenhouse gases, up their use of green energy, or improve their energy efficiencies”.[89] And – despite the Trump administration’s threats “to bully California and carmakers into giving up on climate change”, stronger clean car protections, and/or acting in the public interest by voluntarily reducing auto emissions[90] – most recently:[91]

“Four of the world’s largest automakers, including the Ford Motor Company, have struck a deal with California to reduce tailpipe pollution, in a setback to the Trump administration as it prepares to weaken national emissions standards and revoke states’ rights to set their own such rules.

While Trump administration officials in the White House and Environmental Protection Agency have been working on a plan to drastically weaken Obama-era rules on planet-warming vehicle pollution, four automakers — Ford, Honda, Volkswagen Group of America, and BMW of North America — have been holding secretive talks in Sacramento on a plan to move forward with the standards in California, the nation’s largest auto market. And on Thursday, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California said he was “very confident” that more automakers would join the deal in the coming days.

The move is another blow in the battle between Mr. Trump and California, a state he seems to relish antagonizing and which has filed more than 50 lawsuits against his administration. ‘We in California see these regulations as a good thing. The Trump administration is hellbent on rolling back them back,’ [Governor] Newsom said. ‘They are in complete denialism about climate change’. …

Environmental policy experts called it a powerful pushback against Mr. Trump’s efforts to unwind one of the central policies of the Obama administration to fight climate change. ‘I think this is a breakthrough,’ said Daniel Lashof, the United States’ director of the World Resources Institute, a research organization. ‘This shows that state leadership is indispensable. That’s where the leadership is coming from right now in the U.S. on climate’.”

Seventeen major automakers, including General Motors, Ford, BMW and Toyota, wrote in a letter … that the administration’s plans to weaken car pollution and fuel efficiency standards would hurt their bottom lines and could produce “untenable” instability. …. Official projections show the [Trump] administration’s plan would increase daily gas consumption across the United States by about 500,000 barrels a day, worsening greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to the rise in global temperatures.


– Los Angeles Times[92]

Fostering leadership and social capital, wherever we are – in the workplace, our communities, or at regional, national and international levels – is crucial.[93] Business leaders know it is no longer enough to simply post their company values online. CEOs need to publicly and visibly put those values to work because customers, employees, investors, and communities now demand it.[94] As divisions continue to deepen, business leaders – and where applicable their Boards – must demonstrate their commitment to the countries, regions, and communities where they operate, particularly on issues central to the world’s future prosperity.[95] Business leaders “are coming to understand that we need to get serious about turning the corner on climate change” and that, at minimum, there are five strategic things business leaders must do to protect and promote sustainable value creation and long-term business sustainability:[96]

  • First, business leaders must publicly commit to a future where both business and the environment can prosper, adopting long-term sustainable growth policies that take into account the broader costs to society of company behaviour. Business leaders must acknowledge the risks and develop and implement a climate action plan – setting aggressive, sustainability targets, implementing annual plans to achieve them, and monitoring and communicating on progress. These include initiatives such as setting science-based greenhouse gas emission targets, putting an internal price on carbon, reducing energy use, and switching to renewable forms of power. [Note: To that effect, 169 companies have set science-based targets[97] on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 189 companies[98] have committed to source 100% of their global electricity consumption from renewable sources].
  • Second, businesses need to form a unified front and partner across industries and global supply chains to lower emissions and deliver impact on a transformative scale. [Note: Project Gigaton[99] is one example: a collaboration between Walmart, environmental groups, and global suppliers that seeks to cut a billion tons of carbon pollution from the company’s global supply chain. A coalition of major consumer product companies including Proctor & Gamble, Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Unilever recently announced the zero-waste Loop platform[100] to address the root cause of plastic waste by providing recyclable containers. Additionally, there is a goal to remove commodity-driven deforestation from all supply chains, as well as a goal to map and assess a company’s water risks to operations and supply chains].[101]
  • Third, business leaders must advocate responsibly for smart environmental policy. Taking steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their businesses and across their value chains is critical, it is not enough. Business leaders must also publicly engage on environmental policy with government, weigh in on climate debates at all levels, call on other businesses to jointly step-up climate action, advocate for improved analysis and reporting of climate-related financial risks, develop policy tools to help educate and influence societal demand for low-carbon solutions, and ensure their policy stances reinforce their corporate sustainability standards. [Note: For instance, Danone, Mars, Nestlé, and Unilever co-founded the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance,[102] a group formed specifically to advocate for public policies consistent with their environmental goals. These companies also filed a joint comment[103] supporting the Clean Power Plan in response to the Trump administration’s decision to repeal it. Coke and Pepsi have recently stepped away from a plastics lobbying group that have lobbied governments to make plastic bans illegal and worked against international efforts to crack down on plastic waste – statewide pre-emption laws currently prohibit 70 million Americans in 10 states from enacting ordinances to reduce plastic waste and pollution in their communities[104]].
  • Fourth, business leaders must accelerate environmental innovation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. From severe weather events and diminishing natural resources to power and supply chain disruptions, the impacts of climate change are costly (running hundreds of billions of dollars annually).[105] Disruptive technologies give business leaders a chance to scale solutions to their companies’ – and their industries’ – most urgent environmental challenges. In a survey of 500 C-suite executives, 91% said that emerging technologies can help improve both their bottom line and environmental impact.[106]  [Note: For example, despite the current U.S. administration’s environmental roll-back,[107] the oil and gas industry is exploring predictive analytics and remote sensors to manage harmful methane leaks from their operations].
  • Fifth, business leaders must support government policy and deepen labour-training and retooling efforts in order to offset job losses due to the transition to a low carbon economy, improve labour force participation, and reduce the troubling marginalization and alienation of certain segments of the working population.[108]

As I have learned over this past year, the key to reversing the devastating aspects of climate change is action. While it’s better late than never, and although it seems like a painstakingly slow process, changes are being made and action is being taken. The Government recently released its climate action plan, which sets out almost 200 actions that will make Ireland a cleaner, greener, more energy efficient place to grow up in.It may seem like a daunting task but actually there are already so many people, communities and businesses that have already stepped up to the challenge. Buy Valium Roche Uk


– The Irish Times[109]

Climate change “is a collective action problem that intersects with just about every other area of life. It traverses critical issues such as public health, jobs, education, inequality, poverty, violence, trade, infrastructure, energy, foreign policy and geopolitics”.[110] In this environment, business leaders continue to have a choice, they can take steps toward a solution, do nothing, or continue to support politicians and political agendas that sow division and discord. However, there is no question where business long-term strategic interests lie. Climate change is a collective impact, and ultimately to be successful in addressing the climate crisis domestically and across the globe we need business leadership and support for “a collective response”.[111] And:[112]

“If we manage to tackle global warming, to reverse it, how amazing would that be? How monumental a mark would that be on human history? This is a fight unlike any other in history. For once, we’re not fighting against each other, for once we are actually fighting for each other. For our right to live and for our right to a future.

And that, even in the midst of all this confusion, fear and horrifying dismay, is a very, very hopeful thought.”

[T]o not accept the findings of the [IPCC scientific] report is a rejection of science, and if you are rejecting the science there is not a way forward to address this problem.


– ‘Triple whammy’ threatens UN action on climate change, BBC News[113]

https://www.prehistoricsoul.com/s2ugxrjmc Climate Change: a primer

Causes and Effects of Climate Change

It has become clear that the rise of fossil-fueled economies has caused most of the past century’s warming by releasing heat-trapping gases – in particular carbon dioxide (CO2), but also methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and so-called f-gases (hydrofluorocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, and other fluorinated gases)[114] – to power our modern society. Called “greenhouse gases”, their levels are higher now (as a result of human activity) than at any time in the last 800,000 years[115]:[116]

“The dominant greenhouse gases released into the Earth’s atmosphere reached record levels in 2018, and their global warming power is now 43% stronger than in 1990, according to a new report by the American Meteorological Society released [August 5, 2019]. … The annual report is often described by meteorologists as the ‘annual physical of the climate system’.”

The “greenhouse effect” is the warming that happens when the “greenhouse gases” in Earth’s atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse (thus the name). In short, sunlight shines onto the Earth’s surface, where the energy is absorbed and then radiates back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere, greenhouse gas molecules trap some of the heat and the rest escapes into space. The more greenhouse gases concentrate in the atmosphere, the more heat that gets locked up in the molecules[117] and consequently the larger the future climate changes will be.[118]

Weather records from across Canada show that every year since 1998 – that’s 20 years ago now – has been warmer than the 20th century average. This means that a whole generation of Canadians has never experienced what most of modern history considered a ‘normal’ Canadian climate. But it’s not just Canada …. [t]he whole planet is getting warmer.


– Climate Atlas[119]

Levels of greenhouse gases have gone up and down over the Earth’s history, but they were fairly constant for the past few thousand years. Global average temperatures had also stayed fairly constant over that time – until the past 150 years. Through the burning of fossil fuels and other activities that have emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases (i.e. clearing forests, producing industrial products such as plastic, cement, etc.), particularly over the past few decades, human activity is now enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth significantly in ways that scientists warn are (a) global in scope, and (b) unprecedented in scale.[120] The basic well-established scientific links are as follows:

  • The concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere is directly linked to the average global temperature on Earth; [121]
  • The concentration of greenhouse gases has been rising steadily since the time of the Industrial Revolution, and ‘mean’ (average) global temperatures have been rising along with it; [122]
  • Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most abundant greenhouse gas, accounting for about two-thirds of greenhouse gases, and is largely the product of burning fossil fuels; [123]
  • Climate change, moreover, creates a vicious “climate change feedback loop”. Higher temperatures promote the degradation of land through drought, desertification, melting ice and rising seas, and the promotion of unprecedented wildfires like the ones currently blazing in Alaska, Siberia and Greenland. This, in turn, increases the amount of greenhouse gases being released by landmasses (i.e. ‘old’ carbon accumulated over thousands of years), which further accelerates global warming.[124]

Of our greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide gets most of the attention, and for good reason. It represents about 76% of our greenhouse gas emissions each year. And the lion’s share of it (about 62% of total emissions) comes from burning fossil fuels, including our use of oil, coal, and natural gas. That’s why a lot of the focus on climate change solutions is centered on replacing fossil fuels — it causes about 62% of the problem.


– Dr. Jonathan Foley, The Three Most Important Graphs in Climate Change[125]

We often call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of changes to the Earth’s climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies from place to place. While many people think of global warming and climate change as synonyms, scientists use “climate change” when describing the complex shifts now affecting our planet’s weather and climate systems – in part because some areas actually get cooler in the short term.[126]

Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts “happening now at an alarming rate” and “transforming the global climate system before our eyes”. All of these changes are emerging as human activity continues to add heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, affecting “the delicate controls of our planet’s unstable climate system” and changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely on.[127] One prominent climate scientist has compared the world’s climate to “an animal capable of acting in unpredictable and violent ways”, and that planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions is like “poking” the “beast with a sharp stick”.[128]

Multiple lines of scientific evidence have confirmed the changes in the world’s weather, oceans, ecosystems and more. Earth’s climate is changing and the extent of the change “will depend on how much, and how quickly, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.[129] In addition to rising sea levels and coastal flooding due to warming oceans and melting glaciers and sea ice sheets, weather patterns are shifting and becoming more extreme. This means more intense and extreme storms, more rain and catastrophic flooding followed by longer and drier droughts, ‘off-the-charts’ heat and wildfires, changes in ecosystems (impacting reproduction and the ranges in which plants and animals and marine life can live), and loss of water supplies that have historically come from glaciers and groundwater resources.[130] There are increasing negative effects on human health and well-being (i.e. due to worsening air and water quality, increased spread of disease, ‘toxic stews’ stirred up by disasters, threats to food production, heat stress, displacement of millions of people as geographic areas become unliveable),[131] and people across the world are feeling more anxiety and stress about climate change.[132]

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, every country in the world agreed to keep global temperatures well below … 2 degrees Celsius, while low-lying island states and others lobbied for substantially less. … The Trump administration has said they will pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement.


Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the world is headed for painful problems sooner than expected as emissions keep rising, National Geographic[133]
International Agreement (The Paris Agreement)

The Paris climate agreement is an international accord sponsored by the United Nations to bring the world’s countries together in the fight against climate change.[134]

The Paris Agreement came into force on November 4, 2016, thirty days after the “double threshold” test was met (i.e. ratification by at least 55 countries that account for at least 55% of global emissions).[135]  The historic agreement for environmental action was signed by 195 nations, including the United States. The landmark agreement was reached against the backdrop of climate action leadership by cities and regions, business[136] and civil society.[137]

[The] Paris Agreement [is] a landmark agreement to combat climate change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future.


– Climate Change, United Nations[138]

This international agreement built upon the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that came into force in 1994 (“the Convention”), and for the first time brought all nations into a common cause to set the world on a course towards sustainable development, undertaking ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, and providing enhanced “climate finance” support to assist developing countries to implement the objectives (note: replenishment of the Green Climate Fund by developed countries is central to the ‘grand bargain’ at the heart of the Paris Agreement). As such, it charted a new course in the global climate effort.[139]

The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping the increase in global average temperature to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels”, and to “endeavour to limit” the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius[140] as this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change:[141]

“The Paris climate agreement set a target of no more than 2°C global warming above pre-industrial temperatures, but also an aspirational target of no more than 1.5°C.  That’s because many participating countries – especially island nations particularly vulnerable to sea level rise – felt that even 2°C global warming is too dangerous.  But there hadn’t been a lot of research into the climate impacts at 1.5°C vs. 2°C, and so the UN asked the IPCC to publish a special report summarizing what it would take to achieve the 1.5°C limit and what the consequences would be of missing it.”

Additionally, the Paris Agreement aims to strengthen the ability of countries to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development (i.e. adopt green or renewable energy sources). To reach these ambitious goals, appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework, and an enhanced capacity building framework have been put in place to support actions across the world (including developing countries and the most vulnerable countries). The Paris Agreement also provides for enhanced transparency of action and support through a more robust transparency framework.[142]

The Paris Agreement adopted by 195 nations … included the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by ‘holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’.


– Science Daily, Rapid Response Needed to Limit Global Warning[143]

Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are at the heart of the Paris Agreement, and embody the efforts by which each country will reduce their national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The Paris Agreement requires all countries to the accord to put forward their best efforts through nationally determined contributions (i.e. national climate action plans, or NDCs), and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that each country report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts. Each climate plan reflects the particular country’s ambition for reducing emissions, taking into account its domestic circumstances and capabilities.[144]

The Paris Agreement “offers a dynamic but durable framework for increasing climate action over time. One of the sources for this dynamism is the “global stocktake” – a moment every five years for all countries to pause and account for what has been achieved so far, and what must still be done, to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement”.[145] The global stocktake assesses each country’s contribution to cutting emissions, the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the Agreement, and to inform further actions going forward – and potentially more ambitious targets as required by science – by the parties to the accord.[146]

[T]he global stocktake is the engine of the Paris Agreement, constantly moving us forward and enabling increased ambition of national climate commitments over time. The first full global stocktake will occur in 2023.


– World Resources Institute[147]

The Paris Agreement also recognizes the role of non-party stakeholders in addressing climate change, including cities, other subnational authorities, civil society, and the private sector. Non-party stakeholders are encouraged to (a) scale up their efforts to reduce emissions, (b) build resilience and decrease vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change, and (c) uphold and promote regional and international cooperation.[148]

On June 1, 2017, in his first year in office, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement.[149] Two years later, on July 8, 2019, President Trump – having appointed a former coal lobbyist to head up the Environmental Protection Agency, a former oil lobbyist as his Interior Secretary, and having presided over a country with higher carbon emissions now than when he took office – gave a speech on his ‘environmental leadership’:[150]

“It was a surreal moment in what is increasingly a surreal era of human history. As unprecedented climate disasters continue to harm us and our neighbors, Trump painted a picture of an alternate reality in which he is not one of the main driving forces on the planet to undermine progress on the most important issue we face.

As Trump was speaking, the atmosphere over the Washington, D.C., area contained a near-record amount of moisture, as shown by data from a weather balloon the National Weather Service launched Monday morning. Earlier in the day, a month’s worth of rain fell in an hour across the D.C. metro area — a 1-in-200-year event, assuming a stable climate. (Last year, a similar 1-in-100-year downpour also hit D.C. in July.) Meandering creeks transformed into raging rivers in minutes. Waterfalls appeared in Metro stations. The White House itself began to flood, with images of a pool of water in the basement widely circulating on social media. …

That did not appear to be bothering the president much. “From day one, my administration has made it a top priority to ensure that America is among the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet,” Trump said, ignoring the fact that U.S. carbon emissions are now higher than when he took office. … He didn’t even use the word “climate” once in his entire speech, except to refer to his decision to alienate the international community and withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. … During his time in office, Trump has rolled back more than 80 environmental regulations, most recently the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to speed up the transition from coal to cleaner forms of energy. …

A new Washington Post – ABC New poll found that just 29 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of climate change, the lowest approval rating for any major issue surveyed.”

As the United States cannot legally exit the international Paris Agreement until November 1, 2020, this will likely be an issue in the U.S. presidential election in 2020.[151]

World leaders push back on pressure from Trump to water down G20 climate change commitment. Summit’s joint statement reconfirms 19 of 20 countries’ dedication to Paris agreement.


– Andrew Woodcock, Independent[152]
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme to provide an objective source of scientific information that governments and policymakers can use to develop climate policies. The IPCC currently has 195 member countries.[153]

The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant to the understanding of climate change. It is divided into three Working Groups and a Task Force. Working Group I deals with “the physical science basis of climate change”, Working Group II with “climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability”, and Working Group III with “mitigation of climate change”. The main objective of the Task Force on “national greenhouse gas inventories” is to develop and refine the methodology for the calculation and reporting of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals.[154]

In 2013 the IPCC provided specificity and clarity about the role of human activities in climate change in its Fifth Assessment Report. The IPCC was categorical in its conclusion: climate change is real and human activities are the main cause[155]:[156]

“Forty years ago, a group of climate scientists sat down at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts for the first meeting of the “Ad Hoc Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate”. It led to the preparation of what became known as the Charney Report – the first comprehensive assessment of global climate change due to carbon dioxide. … [T]he Charney Report is an exemplar of good science, and the success of its predictions over the past 40 years has firmly established the science of global warming. …

Despite the high regard in which the authors of the Charney Report were held by their scientific peers at the time, the report certainly didn’t lead to immediate changes in behaviour, by the public or politicians.

But over time, as the world has continued to warm as they predicted, the report has become accepted as a major milestone in our understanding of the consequences our actions have for the climate. The current crop of climate scientists revere Charney and his co-authors for their insight and clarity. …

The report, and the successful verification of its prediction, provides a firm scientific basis for the discussion of what we should do about global warming.

Over the ensuing 40 years, as the world warmed pretty much as Charney and his colleagues expected, climate change science improved, with better models that included some of the factors missing from their 1979 deliberations.

This subsequent science has, however, only confirmed the conclusions of the Charney Report, although much more detailed predictions of climate change are now possible.”

The IPCC tells us that … we need to approach zero net emissions, globally, in the next three decades. … New research, described in ‘Scientific American,’ demonstrates that climate scientists, far from exaggerating the threat of climate change, have underestimated its pace and severity.


– New Yorker[157]

As discussed above, as part of the international decision to adopt the Paris Agreement, the IPCC was invited to provide a “Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways”. The IPCC accepted the invitation, “adding that the Special Report would look at these issues in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty”.[158]

In October 2018, after examining over 6000 studies, the IPPCC issued the special report[159] on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C. While previous scientific enquiries focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by 2°C, this report showed that many of the adverse impacts of climate change will come at the 1.5°C mark.[160] The report found that limiting global warming to 1.5°C – as compared to 2°C – would be beneficial to ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society (due to the reduced risk to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, economic growth, etc.), with clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems. The report noted that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “deep emissions reductions” and “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”. A summary of the report for policymakers presented the following key findings:[161]

  • Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)
  • Climate-related “risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C”.[162]
  • The impacts and costs of 1.5°C of global warming will be far greater than expected.  The past decade has seen an astonishing run of record-breaking storms, forest fires, droughts, coral bleaching, heat waves, and floods around the world with just 1.0°C of global warming. But much of this will get substantially worse with 1.5°C of warming, and far worse at 2°C.
  • A number of climate change impacts can be reduced or avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C or more. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90% with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99%) would be lost with 2°C (coral reefs support about 25% of all known marine species).[163]  Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being, making it easier to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.[164]
  • Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.[165]
  • There are pathways to stabilize global warming at 1.5°C. These solutions all require unprecedented efforts to cut fossil-fuel use in half in less than 15 years and eliminate their use almost entirely in 30 years.[166]
  • Every pound of CO2 emitted in the last hundred years will continue to trap heat in the atmosphere for hundreds of years to come. By 2045 or 2050 there will still be too much CO2 in the atmosphere. More forests or some form of direct capture that takes CO2 out of the atmosphere will be essential to stabilize global temperatures at 1.5°C.[167]  

The details in the report are worth understanding, but there’s one simple critical takeaway point: we need to cut carbon pollution as much as possible, as fast as possible.


– Dana Nuccitelli[168]

It has been said that the IPCC’s Special Report is like getting a troubling diagnosis from your doctor, according to Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University: “Every possible test has been done and the news is not good. The doctor, the IPCC in this case, then explains possible treatment options to ensure our future health. We (the public) decide which option to follow”.[169]

And, the decisions we ultimately make today will be critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both now and in the future.[170]  As noted by David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth[171]:[172]

“I now know there are climate horrors to come, some of which will inevitably be visited on my kids — that is what it means for warming to be an all-encompassing, all-touching threat. But I also know that those horrors are not yet scripted. We are staging them by inaction, and by action, can stop them. Climate change means some bleak prospects for the decades ahead, but I don’t believe the appropriate response to that challenge is withdrawal, surrender. I think you have to do everything you can to make the world accommodate the life you want to have for yourself, and your family, rather than giving up early, before the fight has been lost or won, and acclimating yourself to a dreary future brought into being by others less concerned about climate pain. The fight is, definitively, not yet lost.”

The science is clear: major action must be taken to reduce carbon pollution and speed up the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, or our communities and our children’s lives – home and abroad – will suffer dramatic and irreparable harm.[173] Can that be done? Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus and a wide array of economists (including all living former chairs of the U.S. Federal Reserve) say it can, if policymakers get serious about an economy wide “carbon price” (colloquially referred to as a “tax”) to reduce oil, coal and gas emissions – that is, putting a price on carbon pollution as a “behaviour-changing mechanism” to incentive the reduction of emissions.[174] Currently, we are going in the wrong direction with global emissions increasing:  “Without the full involvement and alignment of our technical, social, and political dimensions, 1.5°C and even 2°C won’t be possible”.[175]

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says. A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change.


– Tess Riley, Guardian[176]

In 2007 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to the IPCC (and former United States Vice-President Al Gore) “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”.[177] A decade later the key take-home message from the IPCC’s Special Report is that:[178]

“[T]he faster we cut carbon pollution, the less severe impacts we’ll face.  We’re not yet doing nearly enough, although the Paris agreement was an important first step, and countries that withdraw from it should become international pariahs.  While it’s important to understand the consequences of missing each temperature target, that bottom line will perpetually hold true.”

‘I’m not willing to do that’: Trump says he won’t take climate action because it would threaten corporate profits. https://space1026.com/2024/01/zcd3vsms90b


– Jake Johnson, Common Dreams[179]
United States Global Change Research Program

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a Federal program mandated by Congress to coordinate Federal research and investments in understanding the forces shaping the global environment, both human and natural, and their impacts on society[180]:[181]

“The Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates that the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) deliver a report to Congress and the President no less than every four years that ‘1) integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program . . .; 2) analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and 3) analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years’.”

The USGCRP facilitates collaboration and cooperation across its 13 Federal member agencies – the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defence, Department of Energy, Department of Health & Human Services, Department of the Interior, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics & Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Smithsonian Institution, and the U.S. Agency for International Development – to advance understanding of the changing Earth system and maximize efficiencies in Federal global change research.[182] 

Together, the USGCRP and its member agencies provide a gateway to authoritative science, tools, and resources to help people and organizations across the United States manage risks and respond to changing environmental conditions.[183]

On November 23, 2018 the USGCRP released an important climate report in what is referred to as volume II of the Fourth National Climate Assessment. The report focused on climate change impacts, risks and adaptations, and “was written to help inform decision-makers, utility and natural resource managers, public health officials, emergency planners, and other stakeholders by providing a thorough examination of the effects of climate change in the United States”.[184]

Six in ten Americans are either ‘alarmed’ or ‘concerned’ about global warming, according to a recent study by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and the share of those choosing ‘alarmed’ more than doubled from 2013 to 2018.


– Anne Barnard, A ‘Climate Emergency’ Was Declared in New York City. Will That Change Anything?, New York Times[185]

The climate report confirmed that “earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities. The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future – but the severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur”. The report concluded that climate-related risks “will continue to grow without additional action. Decisions made today determine risk exposure for current and future generations and will either broaden or limit options to reduce the negative consequences of climate change”:[186]

“Observations from around the world show the widespread effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations on Earth’s climate. High temperature extremes and heavy precipitation events are increasing. Glaciers and snow cover are shrinking, and sea ice is retreating. Seas are warming, rising, and becoming more acidic, and marine species are moving to new locations toward cooler waters. Flooding is becoming more frequent along the U.S. coastline. Growing seasons are lengthening, and wildfires are increasing. These and many other changes are clear signs of a warming world. …

Since the late 19th century, however, humans have released an increasing amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels and, to a lesser extent, deforestation and land-use change. As a result, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the largest contributor to human-caused warming, has increased by about 40% over the industrial era. This change has intensified the natural greenhouse effect, driving an increase in global surface temperatures and other widespread changes in Earth’s climate that are unprecedented in the history of modern civilization. …

Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence. Without human activities, the influence of natural factors alone would actually have had a slight cooling effect on global climate over the last 50 years. …

Today, the largest uncertainty in projecting future climate conditions is the level of greenhouse gas emissions going forward. Future global greenhouse gas emissions levels and resulting impacts depend on economic, political, and demographic factors … .”

Global warming is not just some theory scrawled on a professor’s chalkboard somewhere. It is a reality that will burden human civilization for generations to come. The question for those in positions of power now is how much their children and grandchildren will have to suffer.


– Editorial Board, Washington Post[187]

The U.S. climate report – contrary to the Trump administration’s political position – laid out “the devastating effects of a changing climate on the economy, health and environment, including record wildfires in California, crop failures in the Midwest and crumbling infrastructure in the South”. The report covered “every region of the United States and asserts that recent climate-related events are signs of things to come. No area of the country will be untouched, from the Southwest, where droughts will curb hydropower and tax already limited water supplies, to Alaska, where the loss of sea ice will cause coastal flooding and erosion and force communities to relocate, to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, where saltwater will taint drinking water”.[188] The climate report went on to note that the western mountain ranges were “retaining much less snow throughout the year, threatening water supplies below them. Coral reefs in the Caribbean, Hawaii, Florida and the United States’ Pacific territories are experiencing severe bleaching events. Wildfires are devouring ever-larger areas during longer fire seasons. And the country’s sole Arctic state, Alaska, is seeing a staggering rate of warming that has upended its ecosystems, from once ice-clogged coastlines to increasingly thawing permafrost tundras”.[189] The key findings of the report may be summarized as follows:[190]

  • Human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth in communities across the U.S. are increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
  • The cascading impacts of climate change threaten the natural, built and social systems relied on, both within and beyond the U.S. nation’s borders.
  • Societal efforts to respond to climate change have expanded in the last five years, but not at the scale needed to avoid substantial damage to the economy, environment, and human health over the coming decades.
  • Without substantial and sustained global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support regional initiatives to prepare for anticipated changes, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.
  • On agriculture and food production: Rising temperatures, extreme heat, drought, wildfire on rangelands and heavy downpours are expected to increasingly challenge the quality and quantity of U.S. crop yields, livestock health, price stability and rural livelihoods.
  • On ecosystems: Continued changes to Earth’s climate will cause major disruptions in some ecosystems. Some coral reef and sea ice ecosystems are already experiencing transformational changes, affecting communities and economies that rely upon them.
  • On water: Changes in the quality and quantity of fresh water available for people and the environment are increasing risks and costs to agriculture, energy production, industry and recreation.
  • On coasts: Climate change will transform coastal regions by the latter part of this century, with ripple effects on other regions and sectors. Many communities should expect higher costs and lower property values from sea level rise. Rising sea levels will necessitate mass migrations.[191]
  • On health: Climate change threatens the health and well-being of the American people by causing increasing extreme weather, changes to air quality, the spread of new diseases by insects and pests, and changes to the availability of food and water.

Climate change: Impacts ‘accelerating’ as leaders gather for UN talks.


– BBC News[192]

A national U.S. “newspaper of record” – under the headline “Major Trump administration climate report says damage is ‘intensifying across the country’” – published the following in respect to the USGCRP climate report:[193]

“The effects of climate change, including deadly wildfires, increasingly debilitating hurricanes and heat waves, are already battering the United States, and the danger of more such catastrophes is worsening.

The report’s authors, who represent numerous federal agencies, say they are more certain than ever that climate change poses a severe threat to Americans’ health and pocketbooks, as well as to the country’s infrastructure and natural resources. And while it avoids policy recommendations, the report’s sense of urgency and alarm stands in stark contrast to the lack of any apparent plan from President Trump to tackle the problems, which, according to the government he runs, are increasingly dire. …

That urgency is at odds with the stance of the Trump administration, which has rolled back several Obama-era environmental regulations and incentivized the production of fossil fuels. Trump also has said he plans to withdraw the nation from the Paris climate accord and questioned the science of climate change ….

Th[e] report is striking in its clear statement that climate change is not only already affecting the U.S., but that the effects are getting worse.

‘This report draws a direct connection between the warming atmosphere and the resulting changes that affect Americans’ lives, communities, and livelihoods, now and in the future,’ the document reads, concluding that ‘the evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related threats to Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being are rising’.”

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria called out the United States, China, India, Canada, Mexico and Australia for worsening climate change, and called for “a big fat price on carbon” and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.


– Business Insider[194]
Active Suppression of Public Knowledge and Public Policy on Climate Change

Identifying and addressing the active suppression and/or undermining of science, public knowledge and public policy required to appropriately address the grave risks of climate change is an important avenue for action. Why? Because the science has made it inescapably clear that business as usual is leading to disaster, “and for the most part, opponents of action” appear to be doing “everything they can to distract from it”.[195]

Between campaign contributions, public relations and lobbying firms, climate-denial think tanks, scientists- and universities-for-hire, and the gas, petroleum, coal and other greenhouse gas emitting industries, billions of dollars have been poured into (a) “political capture” (i.e. influencing or undermining political institutions, regulatory agencies, and governments to favour or advance the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups as opposed to the public interest), (b) redefining climate change from neutral scientific fact to a polarizing wedge issue, and (c) slowing and stopping policies adequate to solve the problem at hand. This type of special interest “machine” – bolstered “by a private network of” big money corporate and extraordinarily wealthy “donors” that give donations at levels rivaling a political party (i.e. the “Kochtopus”, as the U.S. billionaire Koch brother’s political network is known, is believed to have 1,200 employees, three times as many as the Republican National Committee) – “has been employed to great effect to” to limit “government action” that may “control greenhouse gas emissions”.[196] As a result, society is paying the price, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future:[197]

“The loose network of far-right think tanks and the reclusive billionaires who fund them helped convince Donald Trump to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate treaty. The administration is passing a wish list of policies boosting the fossil fuel industry and escalating its rollback of climate research. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency this June killed one of America’s most far-reaching and effective climate laws, the Clean Power Plan, and replaced it with something much weaker.”

This systematic assault on evidence-based scientific research has undermined “sound evidence-based policymaking” in the U.S., Australia, Brazil, and across the world.[198] It appears at times that “the struggle to rein in global carbon emissions and keep the planet from melting down has the feel of Kafka’s fiction”.[199] 

Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report.


– Sandra Laville, Guardian[200]

Environmentalists and scientists around the world have been labelled extremists, demonized, mocked as ‘apocalyptic gurus’ and ‘disturbed messiahs’, or otherwise suppressed, undermined, or silenced by particular governments and/or politicians, such actions “typically accompanied by cozy relationships” with special interest groups.[201]  Although certainly not limited to the U.S.,[202] in a July 2019 publication, the journal Scientific American noted the following with respect to the current U.S. Administration:[203]

“The Trump administration scorns climate science: it has rolled back environmental regulations while promoting fossil fuels, and removed and downplayed mentions of climate change on government websites, among other moves that could weaken efforts to address global warming. It should come as no surprise, then, that the White House also seems to be ignoring – even potentially challenging – research and expert opinions on the connections between climate change and national security. …

Scientists who study the issue say one of the clearest findings so far on climate change and state security is the former’s role in increasing the risk of domestic conflict. ‘There’s a lot of evidence that internal stability of societies is strongly coupled to the climate’ … .” 

The fossil fuel industry is increasingly relying on the heavy hand of the government to protect fossil fuels from competition. Subsidies and protective policies shield fossil fuels from the reality that renewable energy has become the cheapest energy source worldwide. Global fossil fuel subsidies are so large, that if redirected, enough money would be available for investments in clean energy and energy efficiency needed to meet the Paris Climate Agreement targets.


– Alex Lenferna, The Conversation[204]

Some of the “key contributors to the problem” of “organized climate change denial”[205] and suppression may include the following:[206]

  • In an increasingly complex, post-fact society, facts appear to be increasingly indistinguishable from opinion. On any given issue, including climate change, too many citizens appear to be unable to reach their own conclusion, relying on a side to “believe in” instead of credible sources that seek to test the accuracy of claims being made by those with a vested interest in the issue.
  • Industry and special interest groups who stand to benefit from the status quo have more resources, power and influence than many countries,[207] let alone individual citizens. They have effectively utilized big-money, political retribution, and the complexity of the issue of climate change to undermine governments who have tried to take effective steps to address climate change and decarbonization. For example, in the U.S. – despite the support across the political spectrum for policies that promote clean and renewable energy sources[208] – since 2014 “no piece of carbon dioxide regulation legislation has managed to get a single Republican co-sponsor in the Senate. The reason?” Public opinion in the U.S. has little impact on policy in the face of big-money politics, partisanship, and the undue influence of wealthy special interests,[209] and “moderate Republicans fear political retribution from the powerful Koch brothers” (industry players and billionaires who run a chain of refineries and pipelines that move crude oil) “and their allies in the fossil fuel industry”.[210]  If corporations across the world – particularly in the U.S. – are too seriously address climate change, their executives and Boards must take a hard look at the lobbying groups that claim to represent them while opposing sound climate policy and legislative proposals.[211]
  • Concerns about climate change and environmental harm have been marginalized under the themes of anti-development or anti-business, rather than addressed through civil discourse and rational decisions informed by science and fact, and in the interest of all stakeholders. As a result of ‘political capture’, some political parties and governments appear to be ideologically opposed to reasonable action on climate change, or even facilitators of industry and their lobbyists, rather than leaders that drive sound public policy. With the powerful lobby from the industry sectors and wealthy stakeholders trying to prevent or slow down the decarbonization of the economy, this has inevitably resulted in domestic and international delay or inaction on this critical issue.[212]
  • According to two peer-reviewed studies, “climate deniers” have garnered more media attention than prominent climate scientists over the years (inappropriately placing people with little understanding of the complexities involved in the same league as top scientists), fuelling public confusion and slowing the response to global warming. This is largely because of the way climate change has been covered in the media: despite the fact that 97% (or more) of scientists accept “manmade” climate change as a scientific fact, the media – with the goal of providing a “balanced” or impartial perspective – share the scientific position of a climate scientist along with the views of an industry official, lobbyist, politician, or ‘thinly credentialed’ academic to counter the scientist. This has made the science of climate change appear to be controversial when there is in fact no controversy. A legitimate counterpoint to a climate scientist would be another scientist with similar expertise, and should be transparent as to which organization the speaker represents, how that group is funded, and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective. Giving individuals with an agenda equal media air time is not “balance” and inappropriately fosters an “appearance of legitimacy” that is manipulated by these special interests to shape public opinion in a manner that is not in fact supported by the scientific evidence or representative of the accepted scientific consensus.[213] 
  • There is also a shared responsibility to tackle climate change, and there is some evidence that due to the way “our brains are wired” people are subject to cognitive “dragons of inaction” (i.e. value “tangible present more than the distant future”, lack of control, bystander effect, bias, ideology, etc.) and “constantly looking for ways to tell ourselves that business as usual is OK”.[214] Until relatively recently, the public has not been as appropriately connected with the climate crisis as it probably should be, whether as investors, employees, consumers, parents, voters, or ultimately as publicly engaged citizens. 

While acknowledging the reality of global warming, the [Koch] brothers, both MIT graduates, funded lobbyists, junk scientists and conspiracy theorists to propagate an alternative reality in which climate science is always contestable, and any policy response to it a socialist power-grab. A new book on the brothers’ operations by Christopher Leonard suggests this disinformation campaign began as early as 1991, in a successful bid to prevent George H.W. Bush fulfilling his pledge to curb carbon emissions. https://sieterevueltas.net/o5zuh4d7  


– The Economist, August 29, 2019.[215]

Knowledge of the “key contributors to the problem” of climate denial and inaction, as well as an understanding of the apparent climate misinformation apparatus, is fundamental in order for leaders and policymakers to avoid the trap of “business as usual” and move forward with appropriate climate policy and actions.[216] 

And on a positive note, the climate denial industry is losing support – even though politically they have more power than they should (with President Trump calling climate change a ‘hoax’, and his administration pursuing an anti-environment agenda) – they are losing credibility in the culture as a majority of citizens across the Western world and across the globe become increasingly concerned about global warming.[217]  According to a global Pew Research survey on how people see climate change, majorities in most surveyed countries see climate change as a major threat to their nation (ie. France 83%, Germany 71%, Canada 66%, UK 66%, Australia 60%, U.S. 59%).[218]  Another poll noted that “nearly 62% of voters” in the U.S. “support holding energy companies liable for funding misinformation on the climate crisis”.[219] 

In this light, with mounting reputational concerns within the oil industry, it is not surprising that the Secretary General of OPEC (the trillion dollar “Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries”) recently acknowledged that the “growing mass mobilization of world opinion” is “beginning to dictate policies and corporate decisions, including investment in the industry”. As a result, there is an emerging school of thought that the fossil fuel industry is in the process of “losing their social licence” to operate:[220]

“By this point, most people realise that the oil companies lied for decades about global warming – they are this generation’s version of the tobacco companies. And it’s clearly affecting their ability to raise capital, to recruit employees and so on. People set out to cost them their social licence, and it’s working. Whether it’s working fast enough – that’s another question.”

We should be treating [climate change] like the disaster and like the crisis it is. We should be advising people of what they can do to stop this crisis or at least reduce its impact. And we should be holding to account those organizations that are frustrating action on this issue, or not acting on this issue. 


– Professor Sean Holman, CBC Radio[221]

https://masterfacilitator.com/2puh7ar3yc Solutions

There are indeed solutions for global warming and the climate crisis, [222] but this problem cannot be solved without global collective action and the societal and political “will” to do so, and – most importantly – without the required business, national, and international leadership to bring this state of affairs to fruition.

Addressing climate change will require many solutions – there’s no magic bullet. Yet nearly all of these solutions exist today, and many of them hinge on humans changing the way we behave, shifting the way we make and consume energy. The required changes span technologies, behaviors, and policies that encourage less waste and smarter use of our resources. 


– Christina Nunez, Global warming solutions, explained[223]
Is there the Societal and Political “Will”?

For any solution to be successful we need to find a better balance between protecting the environment and meeting the needs of working people. [224] A working solution has to respect what voters across the Western world appear to be saying in respect to cost: while economic elites may not notice an economic hit, working and middle class people do.[225] As noted by more than one progressive leader, “finding a way to navigate the complexities of making real progress on protecting the environment, and at the same time standing up for working people and not allowing them to be collateral damage” – ensuring in fact and perception that there are palatable jobs, economic opportunity, and a place in this new economy that is emerging – will take leadership, a real understanding of what is required to transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy, an appropriate big picture roadmap and messaging, building trust, and “hard work”.[226]

The pathway forward will involve a tremendous amount of work, and a well-managed well-led transition with a broad coalition of support will actually ensure demonstrative benefits and sustainable development for not just the environment, but also the economy and our society.[227] Why is this important:[228]

“If you’re in a very rich, liberal society, and you have a certain job, a sufficient income, enough food, housing, and so on, basically, you’re contained on the material level, of course you can redefine things like climate change into something that is a basic need… . But … [i]f there’s an economic crisis, urgency to create jobs, high inflation, or other things that create a lot of misery for people, those are the things that the electorate wants to be dealt with as a priority, but that doesn’t mean that climate change is irrelevant.”

When the French government recently attempted to expand its carbon tax – the tool economists consider most effective at curbing use of carbon-intensive technologies and jump-starting green innovation – it failed spectacularly. … [Demonstrators noted that] ‘Macron is concerned with the end of the world’, one slogan puts it, referring to French President Emmanuel Macron. ‘We are concerned with the end of the month’.


– Catherine Rampell[229]

While there are many causes, and they vary from country to country across Western society, the polarization and lack of trust in our society is in large part a reflection of economic and cultural anxiety,[230] the “widespread and growing dissatisfaction with entrenched economic and social inequality and greater personal uncertainty in a fast-changing global economy. It also reflects people’s mistrust of political and corporate elites, who are seen as the architects of this state of affairs”,[231] creating fertile ground for opportunists in politics (as well as special interest groups) prioritizing their political fortune and power over evidence-based policymaking, public values, and civil discourse. For certain conservative “opponents or skeptics of the climate change crowd, the cost of bending to the scientific consensus is not worth it – either for their election chances or the bottom lines of the fossil fuel industries they favour”.[232]

[Alberta’s Conservative leader] Kenney pledges to go to war with environmentalists.


– Toronto Star[233]

This fragmentation and loss of societal trust, largely along socioeconomic lines, influence the major issues each of our nations face across Western society,[234]  from the UK and the EU to the U.S. and Australia to Canada and New Zealand. And when institutional trust declines, all institutions – business and otherwise – suffer the consequences whether they look to avoid politics or not.[235] Yet, “there’s no way around it: Some of what’s necessary to curb climate change will cause pain, especially in the near term. But there are ways to reduce that pain, economically and politically — especially relative to the economic and political pain sure to come from doing nothing”.[236] Ultimately it is “a false dichotomy” that one has to choose between the economy (i.e. jobs) and the environment (i.e. clean air, etc).[237]  – they in fact go hand in hand, such that nations and businesses not investing in climate change action (i.e. greener technologies such as renewable power) are ultimately going to be the ones that are left behind in the new economy[238] which may be the “single biggest business opportunity in human history”[239]:[240]

“The big take-away for me was this: climate change is scary, but transitioning towards a more environmental and ecological economy is a huge opportunity to tackle both environmental and social issues. If we take the climate crisis head-on and commit to making systemic changes, the result could be better quality of life and more meaningful work for … people as we seek to navigate these transitional times and take control of our futures.”

It’s absolutely the case that emissions and growth can be decoupled. … The technology is available to have faster economic growth while reducing over-all emissions. … But … it takes policy. It won’t happen through markets alone.


– The False Choice between Economic Growth and Combatting Climate Change, New Yorker[241]

As well, “dealing with climate change is difficult because its dimensions are cross-sectoral” – presenting a massive political cooperation and coordination problem – and “international organisations, processes, and mechanisms are limited by their mandates and portfolio boundaries. The puzzle is a global common problem, but” national “government representatives act in their own national interest”.[242] Therefore, as a practical matter and indeed as a legislative matter, there is nothing that cooperative countries (and their public-private partnerships) can do to address the emission of greenhouse gas by their non-cooperative global neighbours. Without the “political will” supporting a truly collective international response, all they can do is prepare for the worst. That is, without broad national and international coalitions and strong leadership, little can be accomplished if powerful nations take steps to undermine the solution. 

So in this environment, what fundamental social, economic and political change is needed for an effective national and international response to climate change? There are, in fact, several ways to progress climate change under current political and leadership conditions, but all will include a concerted and strategic effort by business leaders, climate professionals and researchers, NGOs, cooperative countries, and sub-national governments. For example, in an article entitled “Why it is important to work with conservative governments like Australia’s on climate change” the following potential steps were discussed:[243]

“1. Engage with government on terms it understands

As climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe stated in a recent lecture at the London School of Economics, it is important to learn how to communicate the benefits of climate action in a way that engages the core values of those you wish to influence.

Australia’s Liberal party was born out of a desire to promote individual freedom, free enterprise and social equality, while the National Party has a strong focus on regional Australia, including the agricultural and mining industries. The Coalition’s [long-standing conservative government made up of the centre-right Liberal and National parties] election platform included little mention of climate change but rather focused more broadly on job creation, reducing national debt and taxes, investing in schools, hospitals and roads, national security and immigration. It is useful to consider how action on climate change might in fact align with these ideologies.

  • Freedom and social equality: The impacts of climate change will reduce economic opportunity as industries decline and communities become uninhabitable. And these impacts will be felt hardest by those who are already vulnerable – such as rural Australian communities already facing rising unemployment, those in lower socio-economic urban areas who are more vulnerable to heatwaves, and Aboriginal communities facing increasingly poor health outcomes.
  • Jobs: As the falling cost of renewable energy starts to make coal the expensive option, a sensible strategy for jobs growth would look to the country’s vast renewable resource potential and possible hydrogen export industry.
  • National security: A 2018 Australian Senate enquiry identified climate change as a ‘current and existential national security risk’ as it can exacerbate existing conflicts, for example over water and other resources, destabilise fragile states in the region, and directly threatens lives and livelihoods in Australia.
  • Reducing national debt: Climate change poses a major threat to financial stability. Reducing the national budget deficit has been a key election issue since the global financial crisis, yet one study has suggested that extreme weather events can cost between 0.23 and 1.1 per cent of GDP, with implications for the Government’s budget and economic growth.
  • Agriculture: The impacts of climate change on rainfall, temperature and extreme weather events will increase challenges for the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors already battling drought and warming oceans.
  • Schools, hospitals and roads: Ensuring all investments in new infrastructure for schools, hospitals and roads are low-carbon and climate-resilient will pay dividends through increased durability, efficiency and innovation, while climate change mitigation can reduce the heatwaves and mosquito-borne diseases that would send people to hospital in the first place.
  • Immigration: Immigration and refugee policy is a deeply contentious political, moral and legal issue in Australia and will only become more complex if increasing global temperatures, extreme weather events and rising sea levels serve to displace millions of people in the Asia-Pacific region.
  1. Continue to hold government to account through social movements

On election night, Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos, said “When it comes to climate change, the community will be driving this more and more.” While this could be viewed cynically as a statement aimed at shifting the burden from his government to citizens, there is no question that Australians are increasingly concerned about climate change, and more so than the global average. This concern has been boosted by recent social movements, including the School Strikes for Climate protests, which have made their mark in the country, and the increased attribution of extreme heat events, droughts and bushfires to climate change.

Naomi Klein is among those contending that mass social movements may be required for truly transformational action on climate change. Community action can play an important role in holding the Australian Government to account and shifting the dial on the level of climate ambition expected by voters.

  1. Push for action in states [provinces] and cities

While the federal government should not be absolved of responsibility for national-level ambition, much can be achieved by sub-national governments willing to be visionary. The story of California and other US states and cities, which have forged ahead despite a Presidency reluctant to act on climate change, illustrates this well.

In Australia, much of the responsibility for energy policy rests with the states. Several major renewable energy projects have been developed by Liberal state governments, including Tasmania’s ambitious 2.5 gigawatt ‘Battery of the Nation’ pumped hydro energy storage project, and a series of projects to enhance grid capacity and storage technology to support increased renewable energy capacity in New South Wales (such as the Transmission Infrastructure Strategy and Emerging Energy Program). The states of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory have all set mid-century net-zero emissions targets, while Tasmania has already experienced a year of net-zero emissions, in 2015/16, thanks to its predominantly hydro-powered energy system and carbon sequestration by the state’s forests.

At the city level, Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney have all made the Carbon Disclosure Project’s ‘A List’ of global cities, based on their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate change and manage water resources.”

And, there are indeed multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits associated with policies and projects to reduce emissions, which is a compelling rationale in itself for “effectively combining climate action with sustainable development and green growth worldwide”.[244] 

Nevertheless, despite the compelling science, rising rewards of green energy and climate economics, and citizens around the world filling the streets demanding climate action – uniting across timezones, cultures and generation as part of the September 2019 climate strikes[245] – there is still an “organized climate change denial” apparatus (i.e. pushing five categories of misinformation: “it’s not real, it’s not us, it’s not bad, the experts are unreliable, and climate solutions won’t work”), with a powerful U.S. President “basically enunciating” the “denier talking points”, that can undermine the progress being made.[246]  Nevertheless, it is fair to say that there is certainly a growing societal and political will to address climate change, as evidenced by the following:

  • The challenge of tackling global warming has been a powerful catalyst in galvanising the debate over whether companies should have a broader purpose (beyond simply profits).
  • The historic Paris Agreement for collective environmental action was signed by 195 nations and represents the first-ever worldwide accord on a pragmatic path to tackle climate change.
  • A majority of citizens across the globe are increasingly concerned about global warming,[247] with a 2019 global Pew Research survey revealing that a majority of people in most surveyed countries see climate change as a major threat to their nation.[248] 

[T]he 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science went to two economists, William D. Nordhaus and Paul M. Romer, whose work on economic growth and climate change helped change the way we think about climate economics. Climate politics are also changing, from a contest of who wins and loses to one of survival for communities and ways of life. This shift will require new approaches. … The climate is changing faster than ever. Our politics are about to as well.  


– Washington Post[249]
What Are the Potential Solutions?

In the U.S., the Green New Deal – a plan to decarbonize the economy while ushering in a greater level of social and economic justice – has become a key policy debate with major segments of the Democratic Party. The goal of the plan is not just to cut fossil fuel consumption but also to do so while investing in jobs, education, infrastructure, health care and a wide array of programs designed to challenge the status quo. In Canada, the Green New Deal has sparked some interest among progressives, who are looking for a plan that will appropriately address the climate crisis “while not leaving behind the working class and marginalized populations”[250]:[251]

“There are clear paths for most countries to achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that can generate near-term macroeconomic payback. Just about all leading emitters could eliminate 75% to 90% of the gap between emissions under current policies and their individual 2050 2°C Paris targets using proven and generally accepted technologies. If they prioritize the most efficient emissions reduction measures, taking the necessary steps will actually accelerate, rather than slow, GDP growth for many countries. All countries can generate economic gain by moving at least part of the way—even if they move unilaterally.”

Climate change is disrupting national economies, costing us dearly today and even more tomorrow. But there is a growing recognition that affordable, scalable solutions are available now that will enable us all to leapfrog to cleaner, more resilient economies.


– UN Climate Action Summit 2019[252]

Combatting climate change is the most complicated ‘transformational change’ challenge humanity has ever faced.[253] Why? Because there is no single or isolated solution for the global climate crisis.[254] A recent UN report has made it clear that the overall solution is a complex dynamic that requires leadership and focus on more than just one area of the puzzle, with multilateral initiatives that “reinforce the kind of transformative change needed to secure a future planet that bears any semblance of the planet we know today”.[255]

The Paris accord commitments are a baseline for where a country’s emissions should be in 2030 and afterwards. In order to reach that goal, governments must be supported by business and broad coalitions to – at minimum – set goalposts and deadlines; use financial and tax incentives to encourage behavioural change and investment in green technology and energy; subsidize practices that must be encouraged to meet the goals and timelines; and put a price on the carbon emissions coming from large, industrial emitters.[256]

While it may be fair to say that the overall game plan is familiar, the specifics of the solution are not. In this environment, it is the role of leadership to support and ultimately endorse and communicate carefully considered solutions, policies, and plans developed by a wide array of experts working together (i.e. scientists, economists, sociologists, management experts, etc.). The “technical complexity of the choices” we are talking about may be exemplified in just one prominent book: Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming.[257] In creating the book, a team of researchers spent two years examining the data on the 100 most substantive ways to reduce or sequester emissions across the world, setting out a comprehensive compilation of climate options for policymakers to consider for each country, region and community across the globe:[258]

“It examines and prioritizes 80 ready-now climate-changing ideas, and quantifies their potential impact, along with 20 ideas that might materialize in the future, including direct air capture, hydrogen-boron fusion, autonomous vehicles, solid-state wave energy and living buildings. The ideas are listed in [a] summary table, along with their potential impacts from a global perspective.”

Ultimately however, whatever solutions are adopted in the transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy (and there are a number of prominent monographs, books, papers and articles on the subject setting out various choices), the required changes will need to span technologies, behaviours, and policies that encourage sustainable development and green growth, less waste and smarter use of our resources. Such choices include the following:[259]

  • Big picture, (a) improvements to energy efficiency and vehicle fuel economy, (b) increases in wind and solar power, (c) biofuels from organic waste, (d) setting a price on carbon, (e) protecting forests (including other carbon sinks such as wetlands, mangroves and seagrass), (f) generating energy from clean sources of energy (because fossil fuel extraction and combustion is the number one cause of climate change, responsible for about two-thirds of the problem), and (g) reducing emissions from other important sectors like agriculture, industrial processes, cement production, etc. (because these are responsible for the remaining third of the problem),[260] are all potent ways to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trapping heat on the planet.[261]
  • Specifically, stronger emissions standards for the fossil fuel industry, motor vehicle industry, and climate-intensive industries such as steel, cement, and plastic. A recent report calls for all industries to set targets to halve their emissions by 2030.[262]
  • Implementation of carbon pricing. As a “behaviour-changing mechanism”, economists note that “carbon pricing” – regulatory fees colloquially referred to as “carbon taxes” – are the most efficient cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon pricing works as follows: A price is levied on greenhouse gas emitting industries for each tonne of emissions from fossil fuel sources, incentivizing business “to think about if they have low-cost ways of avoiding an emission and thereby saving on the” regulatory fee. Most greenhouse gas emitting industries, producers and distributors of carbon-based fuels look to pass the regulatory fee cost onto the consumer, however, it is not a tax for consumers – for example in Canada – because the money collected by the Federal government is returned to its citizens: 90% going back to the households (in the affected provinces) and the remaining 10% going to hospitals, schools and businesses in order to further help develop greener solutions. The intent is to neutralize the issue of cost to individuals.[263]
  • Innovation aimed at finding scalable solutions for green non-polluting energy for the planet (i.e. that do not produce carbon dioxide or other heat-trapping gases).[264] The top types of sustainable energy to support commercial sustainability include bioenergy (renewable energy derived from organic matter), geothermal energy (derived from the heat of the earth), hydroelectric power (generated from flowing water), the ocean (electrical energy from the sun’s heat and mechanical energy form the motion of tides and waves), wind energy (wind turbines and wind farms capture and convert wind into electricity), and solar power (renewable energy captured from the sun’s energy directly). Scientists are also working on ways to sustainably produce hydrogen, most of which is currently derived from natural gas, to feed zero-emission fuel cells for transportation and electricity. Other efforts are aimed at building better batteries to store renewable energy; engineering a smarter electric grid; and utilizing technology to capture carbon dioxide from power plants and other sources with the goal of storing it underground or – in the case of cement production – within the product itself. Some experts argue that nuclear power – despite concerns over safety, water use, and toxic waste – may also be part of the solution, because nuclear plants do not contribute any direct air pollution while operating.[265] It should be noted that solar and wind energy have reached a tipping point and are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many places, such that “low cost solar, wind, and battery technologies are on profitable, exponential trajectories that if sustained, may be enough to halve emissions from electricity generation by 2030”.[266]
  • While halting new greenhouse gas emissions is critical, scientists have also emphasized that we need to extract existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. More extraordinary ideas for cooling the planet – such as “geoengineering” stratagems utilizing “carbon capture technologies”, or solar radiation management stratagems utilizing “hypothetical technologies that aim to lower warming by reflecting the sun’s rays away from the earth” – have largely been dismissed at this time because they may pose more environmental risks than proven benefits. However, although there are serious headwinds, technology “to capture carbon out of the atmosphere or eliminate it as a byproduct in industrial processes will be an essential piece of the puzzle” and more money is starting to flow into the sector.[267] However, what is clear today is that planting trees, restoring seagrasses, and boosting the use of agricultural cover crops could help clean up significant amounts of carbon dioxide. Restoring forests already cut down in Brazil, for example, could draw about 1.5 billion metric tons of CO2 out of the air, and a recent study published by the National Academies of Science estimated the world’s forests and farms could store 2.5 gigatons.[268] A July 2019 study published in the journal Science calculated that covering 900m hectares of land across the world with trees – roughly the size of the continental US – could remove 205 gigatonnes of carbon from the atmosphere (about two-thirds of the roughly 300 gigatonnes of atmospheric carbon that can be traced to human actions). More than half of the 900 million hectares can be found in just six countries: Russia, Canada, the US, Australia, China and Brazil.[269]
  • Farm and food sustainability, including food waste, are important pieces of the climate change puzzle. The world urgently needs to change the way it produces and consumes food. In the coming decades, the global agricultural system must find ways to meet pressing but sometimes competing needs. Farmers must provide enough food for a population that is expected to reach nearly 10 billion people by 2050. At the same time, agriculture must lighten its environmental footprint. The impacts of agriculture are large and growing, to the point where they are already undermining food production through land degradation, water scarcity, and adverse impacts of climate change. A World Resources Report – Creating A Sustainable Food Future: Final Report, July 2019 – explores a 22-item “menu for a sustainable food future,” which is divided into five “courses” that together could close these gaps: (1) reduce growth in demand for food and agricultural products; (2) increase food production without expanding agricultural land; (3) protect and restore natural ecosystems; (4) increase fish supply (through improved wild fisheries management and aquaculture); and (5) reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production.[270]
  • Global fossil fuel subsidies and bailouts by certain governments across the world are so large (exceeding $5.2 trillion by some estimates), that if redirected, enough money would be available for investments in clean energy and energy efficiency needed to meet the Paris Agreement targets. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could free up US$2.9 trillion in government revenue annually. That amount is more than double the annual investment of US$1.25 trillion the International Energy Agency estimates is needed by 2035 in clean energy and energy efficiency to stop the world from warming by 2°C.[271] The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) reports that “just 10 – 30% of the fossil fuel subsidies would pay for a global transition to clean energy”.[272]
  • Many of the world’s largest corporations have taken the fight against climate change into their strategic business plans, with the goal of promoting economic, environmental and social sustainability (“triple bottom line”), long-term sustainable value creation, reduce costs and risks, draw investment and burnish their reputations with investors and customers.[273]
  • Sub-national governments and communities around the world have recognized that adaptation must also be part of the response to climate change. From flood-prone coastal towns to regions facing increased droughts and fires, there are initiatives focused on boosting resilience (i.e. managing or preventing land erosion, building microgrids and other energy systems built to withstand disruptions, designing buildings that take into account rising sea levels).[274]
  • Promoting steps citizens can take to address climate change: (a) plant trees and other vegetation to halt deforestation (or donate to charities that plant trees); (b) become carbon neutral (the average person in North America emits approximately 16 tons of CO2 annually; i.e. energy and travel choices; unsustainable purchases/planned obsolescence of products and clothing, etc.); (c) maintain a diet with less meat; (d) advocate for corporations to disclose and act on their climate-related risks (since 1988 100 companies are responsible for more than 70% of greenhouse gas emissions; and many companies in high-emission companies are not doing enough to respond to climate change); (e) reduce food waste (26.2 gigatons of COwaste can be avoided if food waste reduced by 50%); (f) cut fossil-fuel use ((i.e. utilize mass transit, bikes, electric cars; reduce commercial air travel – there is a rapidly growing social movement to reduce or avoid flying); (g) hold local, state/provincial, and federal governments accountable (vote for candidates who support the environment and a viable solution to climate change).[275]
  •  Improving communication. There is an urgent need to improve communication about climate change with a focus on the science, its impact, and the solutions. To encourage objective and productive discussion, climate communication strategies must be tailored to their intended audiences and through mediums that promote trust. As with all communication, context is critical – cultural, political, social, environmental, economic, ideological and psychological conditions matter – (a) find common ground on climate change; (b) emphasize how climate change affects people today in their everyday lives; (c) focus on benefits of climate change engagement; (d) creatively empower people to take meaningful and purposeful action; and (e) ‘smarten up’ communications about climate change to match the demands of a 21st century communications environment.[276]
  • Social movements are a key part of the solution. Everyone can talk about climate change with their family and friends, and/or leverage their collective voice with politicians by exercising their right to freedom of expression to participate in peaceful “climate strikes” (including the recent Global Climate Strikes that took place in September 2019 in conjunction with the UN’s emergency climate summit in New York).[277] Researchers have found that the “needle on public opinion” can improve by “simply increasing the frequency of climate-related discussions”.[278]
  • Access to the public courts.  Litigation and science are legitimate tools for accountability. The environment, corporate law, and director liability is a fast-emerging area – and climate change litigation is increasingly viewed as a tool to influence policy outcomes and corporate behaviour. Corporate fiduciary duties and corporate law have traditionally been insulated from environmental and climate concerns (with the costs of climate change “entirely externalized and foisted on” society and “the taxpayer”), but as the impacts of climate change escalate, this may no longer be true, particularly for the carbon majors. Why? Because “those who profit from selling harmful products should bear their fair share of the costs of the harm caused by their products”.[279]
  • In addition to litigation, climate-accountability motions and letters by local government (i.e. cities and municipalities) is a promising new step in relation to corporate accountability for climate change. Local government pass a motion to direct the mayor (or other government official) to write a letter to the world’s largest fossil fuel companies – those with the highest percentage of greenhouse gas emissions, misled the public about the risks, actively resisted policies to curb emissions, and pocketed billions in public subsidies – asking them to be “accountable for their share of climate emergency costs”; as well as requesting provincial/state and federal governments to “enact legislation holding fossil fuel companies liable for climate-related harms caused by their contributions to climate change”. These type of demands for climate accountability “signal” a communities’ resolve that co-operation to manage the impact of climate change must be based on trustworthy commitments and a fair allocation of burdens.[280]
  • International sanctions and economic pressure on countries with egregious violations of environmental norms. These type of sanctions and economic pressure – similar to those currently utilized to address countries that support terrorism, or violate human rights, territorial sovereignty, or international norms on nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons – may eventually become part of the toolkit for tackling the climate crisis. However, for this to work, the world’s major economies will need to get their own houses in order.[281]

At the end of the day, successful climate change policies and solutions are directly dependent upon international cooperation and collective action. As noted by an international group of experts in a September 2019 study (the Exponential Roadmap: Scaling 36 Solutions to Halve Emissions by 2030), “while solutions exist, the scale of transformation requires system-wide action accelerated by climate leadership”, and “much stronger policy, finance and exponential technologies”.[282]

Oil and gas companies are desperate to stop the wave of lawsuits seeking to hold them financially responsible for their role in climate change. Should these suits get to trial, their executives would have to testify about whether they knowingly misled the public about the climate threat posed by their products going back to the 1970s.Expect them to increase pressure on Congress to block state and local access to the courts, while they continue to fight tooth and nail against any form of accountability to communities around the country.


– Ann Carlson, Op-Ed: Why Big Oil fears being put on trial for climate change, Los Angeles Times[283]
What Type of Leadership is Required?

Different levels of change (i.e. developmental,[284] transitional,[285] or transformational)[286] require different levels of leadership, effort, and skill. Climate change action represents the third type of change – collectively it requires transformational change to the way we organize our economies and societies.[287] Transformational change represents a fundamental shift from current paradigms or questions underlying assumptions and mindsets, and requires a shift in assumptions made by an organization’s – whether government, business or other entity – leadership and personnel. Transformational change for business usually results in an organization that differs significantly in terms of structure, processes, culture and strategy. Strong strategic and operational leadership and change management is needed to plan, implement, and guide the organization (and its broader coalition of partners), personnel, and corporate culture through this level of strategy implementation and change. With the right leadership and change management framework, it should result in the creation of an organization that operates in developmental mode going forward – one that continuously learns, adapts and improves.[288]

Back in the ’60s, when scientists were racing to the moon, there was a popular saying that went: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Today, Washington is a very, very big part of the problem. … This has gone from a scientific challenge to a political one. It is time for all of us to recognize that climate change is the challenge of our time. … It may be a moonshot — but it’s the only shot we’ve got.


– Michael Bloomberg, Our Next Moonshot: Saving Earth’s Climate[289]

“Moonshot” may be an understatement for what is necessary to address global climate change. Why? Because there is no clear “single action” route to success; entire systems need to change; and there is strong “special interest” opposition that extends to the highest levels of governments (such as in Australia and the United States).[290] The primary challenge for climate change solutions “is not” limited to “scientific or technological. It’s political. The fact is: We’ve already pioneered” many types of “technology”. We “know how to power buildings using the sun and wind; how to power vehicles using batteries charged with renewable energy; how to power factories and industry using hydrogen and fuel cells. And we know that these innovations don’t require us to sacrifice financially or economically. Just the opposite: Those investments, on balance, create jobs and save money. Yes, all of those power sources” and other solutions “need to be brought to scale” and “that will require further scientific innovation”. But, in a world where climate success requires collective action by global leaders – and the U.S. Administration lead by Donald Trump is not only “uninterested in leading the way on reducing carbon emissions” but is actively “pulling in the opposite direction”[291] – the question cannot be limited to “‘how do we tackle climate change?’”,[292] but must also include who will lead among the world leaders?[293]:[294]

“In the face of compelling evidence that climate change is actually occurring, and that certain human activities are the cause, what is holding the world back from decisively responding to this threat? Two primary challenges are first, changing mindsets to support a more aggressive response to climate change; and second, solving the problem of collective action on a global level. While there has been progress on meeting the first challenge, the world faces continuing difficulties on the second. …

[D]espite the fact mindsets have shifted positively … decisive action still faces critical obstacles. In particular, there is a collective action problem: individual nation-states may reject or defer taking action because on their own, they account for only a portion of the problem. They are more likely to act if and as others do so as well. … The five largest emitters are China (with 25.9 percent), the United States (13.9), the EU (9.3), India (6.4) and Russia (4.9). … Resolving collective action problems requires co-operative solutions in which all parties expect and realize benefits.”

The climate crisis just might be the world’s greatest collective action problem, and tackling the problem will require a collective co-ordinated global action (of currently disparate efforts by government, business, scientists and academia, and NGOs). However, the active participation of the G-20 is pivotal in light of the fact that these countries account for more than 80% of global emissions[295]:[296]

“Big government and corporate power have to be harnessed. The US and China, the two most powerful nations and the ones that cause the most damage through their emissions, can lead the way. They will have to cooperate. This is a new politics — a system-change.”

Unfortunately, after two-and-a-half years of President Trump’s turbulent presidency, traditional allies and stakeholders are increasingly looking elsewhere for leadership – and it is not clear if an alternative can replace the U.S. and its “industrial and technical capability to lead on this issue”, particularly in light of the “diplomatic machinery” that “it commands when engaged on an issue”.[297] Currently Europe, large U.S. states (i.e. California), and international cities (i.e. New York, Vancouver, Copenhagen, Paris) are trying to lead the way[298] – with the support of many large businesses and their leadership teams – but many think that the world needs the global leadership, power and influence of the next U.S. President to be part of this effort: leading, inspiring, and supporting a broad political and business coalition across the world (i.e. aligning with the ‘Paris Agreement’, championing the ‘UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’, and leading the expansion of the ‘Green Climate Fund’[299] multilateral climate financing mechanism). In light of the current partisanship, polarization, and ‘political capture’ in the U.S. this may be a moonshot in itself as the global community “wonders what’s happened to America” and whether it will “lead the free world again”.[300]

And while the U.S. has pulled back, China – the world’s largest polluter, but also the world’s biggest investor in renewable energy – may be stepping into the vacuum at the global leadership table:[301]

“China is a participant in the so-called Major Economic Forum, in which ministers from leading countries work together to maintain momentum and common understanding in climate talks. The Forum had been run by the U.S., but Canada stepped in once the U.S. pulled out. ‘China has come a long way in moving from a climate resister to a strong supporter of the Paris agreement and global climate governance’. …

Canada’s minister of environment and climate, Catherine McKenna, described stepping up to fill the vacuum after the U.S. pulled out and holding a meeting of top ministers from the EU and China last June. … ‘I think that’s a very positive thing that even without the leadership of the United States – which was extraordinary under the Obama administration – internationally we’re all moving forward including working with the E.U. and China,’ she said.

China’s climate diplomacy includes working with individual U.S. states.

‘When the U.S. walked away from the table you saw the EU, Canada and China get together and essentially say that they wanted to be the leaders and so they were the ones convening all the major economies to talk about what a path forward looked like. They would invite the U.S. to be at the table but they weren’t going to wait for them,’ recalled Julie Cerqueira, executive director of the U.S. Climate Alliance, launched by a group of U.S. governors in 2017 in response to Trump’s announcement of pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement. The group now includes 24 states and Puerto Rico, representing 40 percent of U.S. emissions, and is engaged in negotiating agreements with countries, including China, while Washington steps back.”

[T]the rise of anti-establishment populist nationalism in the U.S. … and other nations represents a serious challenge to gaining international climate cooperation. But when other global leaders begin to act, and gain political credit, and citizens awaken to the true nature of the threat, even these forces will feel tremendous pressure to change their stripes, or be chased out of power. For now, in the U.S., regional leaders — especially governors —will have to fill the void until a new president is elected. 


– Paul Bledsoe, Climate Success Requires Action by Global Leaders – including US President, The Hill[302]

Ultimately, bold climate action will require an undisputed global government leader or leaders (with a broad coalition of support across the world and political spectrum, including strong business leaders and their Boards) to inspire a “Green New Deal” – a broad and ambitious package of policies, investments, and jobs akin to a “climate change moonshot”[303] – and ensuring all advances made are shared with the global community. This “moonshot” type of transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy – which as a complex problem involving transformational solutions, change, and dynamics that cannot be completely known in advance – will require a strategic and change management framework that at minimum addresses the following factors:[304]

  •  Acceptance of a massive international challenge similar to the United States national challenge in the 1960s “to go to the moon”. This requires a clear and compelling articulation of the cost benefit analysis and rationale (The Why).
  • Leadership. “Probably the single most important characteristic of a successful transformation project is having a strong, engaged” and supportive “leader” (The Who). For example, President Kennedy inspired the U.S. “to choose to go the moon” based on “national security”, “hope” (we can do something unprecedented in the history of the human race), “freedom” (we will determine our own future, not have it dictated to us); the frontier spirit” (this is part of the American national heritage), “business” (our firms will make money out of new technology that is generated), “jobs” (the economic benefits will be shared), “politics” (expenditures will be located in influential constituencies), and “morality” (this is the right thing to do);
  • Focus on scalable, breakthrough solutions. This requires a clear “scope” and goalposts (The What). The scope defines what the project will generally look like when delivered. The more that is known about this at the outset, the better the understanding in respect to “duration, cost, and skills needed to produce the desired outcome”.
  • International and bipartisan collaboration and support. This requires buy-in from the key stakeholders (The How). “The most successful projects occur when all, or at least most, of the key stakeholders (the people impacted by the project, with different degrees of influence) are in favour of it. Even better is when they are driving it”. In strategy implementation and change management “there is a maxim: ‘There is always one stakeholder who will be happy if your project fails’.” There are politicians, regulators, shareholders, or simply employees “who can be obstacles to the success of the endeavor.” Following the “race to moon” analogy, this was begun under a Republican president (Eisenhower), continued under successive Democratic Presidents (Kennedy and Johnson) and completed under a Republican president (Nixon);
  • A finish line / deadline / timeline. “Projects that start with an ambitious and undisputed deadline have a higher chance of success” (The When). “Starting without a finish line” can undermine a project, or at minimum allow the project to drag on for extended periods of time with few accomplishments. In this case, there’s a precedent for this particular kind of deadline: when John F. Kennedy set the bold goal of putting a man on the moon by end of the 1960s – this leader’s words were the inspiration for a project that might never have been possible without that ambitious finish line.
  • A true priority. This factor “covers the external elements that can have a positive or negative impact on the project” (The Where). “These areas are often outside the control of the project leader” — such as funding, the overall project implementation competencies in the organization (i.e. science-based substantive decision-making, agile management, safety, or the priority of the project in relation to all the other projects being carried out. However, there are ways that an engaged and respected leader can influence a project favourably nationally and internationally.  

Each of us can make a difference. The biggest action we can take? Vote for candidates who understand the gravity of the situation and committed to taking action on climate change. We need world leaders to make stronger commitments to guarantee a healthy future for life on this planet.


– What You Need to Know About the New IPCC Climate Report, Earth Day[305]

https://modaypadel.com/zvd21rea5m Conclusion

The climate crisis is a global existential problem that does not respect national borders.

Climate change is upon us, and its effects are already apparent in every country across the world. The scope and magnitude of the changes to the environment present a clear danger to our way of life, and the world is not going “to be able to fight climate change” or transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy without international cooperation and “massive changes in business and large industries”.[306]

It is a global problem requiring global cooperation and collective action, and – not surprisingly – this is a heavy “political lift”[307]  that cannot be accomplished by governments alone (particularly in light of a lack of political will in some countries). The ultimate solution will require the support of a broad coalition that specifically includes the leadership of business leaders and their Boards. The net influence and impact of global business is tremendous, and the opportunity for global business to participate in changing the course we are on is enormous.[308]

The future of the environment rests on today’s leaders, and we need to be doing much more — starting now.


– Stephen Badger, Chairman, Mars[309]

Change is inevitable, and strategic business leaders understand the importance of playing a visible constructive role in the solution: working to bring about a responsible, low-carbon, low-climate risk, sustainable economy. To do otherwise will mean that a key opportunity will be missed, while also exacerbating financial, operational and reputational risks for their own organizations.

At this time in history business and environmental goals are becoming increasingly aligned,[310] and many of today’s innovative business leaders and their Boards are approaching the climate crisis in the same manner they would with any other threat or opportunity that may undermine their long-term business sustainability.

Executives can no longer afford to approach sustainability as a “nice to have” or as solid function separated from the “real” business.  Those companies that proactively make sustainability core to business strategy will drive innovation and engender enthusiasm and loyalty from employees, customers, suppliers, communities and investors.


– Harvard Business Review[311]

Ultimately the transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy is not only a pathway to manage climate impacts – “playing offence” to reduce emissions and “playing defence” to cope with an altered environment[312] –  but is also as a pathway to sustainable prosperity and increased competitiveness.

Why else should it be done: “Because it is our watch. There isn’t anybody else”.[313]

Eric Sigurdson

https://www.ngoc.org.uk/uncategorized/future-events/abvp6z95m5u Endnotes:


[1] See for example, Meinhard Doelle, Decades of Climate Policy Failure in Canada: Can We Break the Vicious Cycle?, Dalhousie University blogs (Environmental Law News), August 8, 2018.

[2] Victory Luke, Climate Action at local level makes a real impact: in the midst of confusion and fear over the environment, there are grounds for hope, The Irish Times, July 24, 2019.

[3] Dominec Waughray (World Economic Forum), How to Build a Climate of Confidence to Help Leaders Step Up, Forbes, September 25, 2019; Steven Bernstein and Matthew Hoffmann, The politics of decarbonisation and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments, Policy Sciences, Vol. 51, Issue 2, June 2018; Lisa Dreier, David Nabarro, and Jane Nelson, Systems Leadership for Sustainable Development: Strategies for Achieving Systemic Change, Harvard Kennedy School, Corporate Responsibility Initiative, 2019; Jale Tosun and Jonas Schoenefeld, Collective climate action and networked climate governance, WIREs Climate Change, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2017; Eric Orts, Idea #27: Business Must Get Political – For Climate Sustainability, Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 2019.

[4] Eric Sigurdson, Overcoming the Forces of ‘Short-termism’ – corporate governance, principled leadership, and long-term sustainable value creation, Sigurdson Post, February 19, 2018.

[5] Simon Henry, Climate change cannot be solved by governments alone. How can the private sector help?, World Economic Forum (weforum.org), November 21, 2017; Lisa Viscidi, Brazil Was a Global Leader on Climate Change. Now It’s a Threat, Foreign Policy, January 4, 2019; Max Fawcett, The conversation Calgary needs to have: How does an oil city adjust to a new reality?, CBC News, September 12, 2019.

[6] Editorial, The Observer view on how the left can thwart Johnson and Trump, Guardian, August 4, 2019; Steve Denning, The Vital Next Step in Fighting Climate Change, Forbes, July 28, 2019.

[7] Irene Banos Ruiz, The role of the business sector in tackling the climate crisis, DW, June 20, 2019. Also see, Ethan Rotberg, Businesses urged to take steps to respond to climate change, CPA Canada (cpacanada.ca), December 7, 2018.

[8] Simon Henry, Climate change cannot be solved by governments alone. How can the private sector help?, World Economic Forum (weforum.org), November 21, 2017; Daniel Esty and Michelle Bell, Business Leadership in Global Climate Change Responses, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 108, Issue S2, 2018; CEO pulse on climate change – Countdown to a deal on climate change: What does this mean for business success?, PWC, 2015. Also see, Also see, Eric Sigurdson, Leadership Reimagined: the ‘CEO Statesman’ and ‘Lawyer Statesman’ in a Time of Political, Economic and Social Fragmentation – statespersonship is good for business, good for institutions, and good for a divided and disaffected society, Sigurdson Post, May 31, 2019; Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Strategy and Geopolitical Risk in a G-Zero World: Inequality, Polarized Democracies, and the shifting economic and political landscape, Sigurdson Post, May 31, 2018; Larry Fink, Larry Fink’s 2019 Letter to CEOs: Purpose & Profit, BlackRock.com, January 2019; Corporate Governance: Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans’, Business Roundtable, August 19, 2019; Alan Murray, America’s CEOs Seek a New Purpose for the Corporation, Fortune, August 19, 2019; Jenna McGregor, Group of top CEOs says maximizing shareholder profits no longer can be the primary goal of corporations, Washington Post, August 19, 2019; Anders Melin and Jeff Green, JPMorgan’s Dimon Among CEOs Rejecting Investor-Centric Model, Bloomberg, August 19, 2019; Claudine Gartenberg and George Serafeim, 181 Top CEOs Have Realized Companies Need a Purpose Beyond Profit, Harvard Business Review, August 20, 2019.

[9] Paul Hawken (editor), Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin Books, 2017. Also see, Michael Gerrard and John Dernbach (editors), Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States: Summary & Key Recommendations, Environmental Law Institute, 2018.

[10] Eli Boufis, Is There A Windfall in Climate Change for PE?, Forbes, July 31, 2019. Also see, Jens Burchardt, Philipp Gerbert, Stefan Schönberger, Patrick Herhold, and Christophe Brognaux, The Economic Case for Combating Climate Change, BCG, September 27, 2018; Climate-Smart Development: Adding up the benefits of actions that help build prosperity, end poverty and combat climate change, The World Bank and ClimateWorks Foundation, 2014; Helen Mountford, Amar Bhattacharya, Lord Nicholas Stern, etal, Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st  Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent Times, New Climate Economy, The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, newclimateeconomy.report, 2018; Michael Gerrard and John Dernbach (editors), Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States: Summary & Key Recommendations, Environmental Law Institute, 2018; Adele Peters, Fighting climate change could boost the global economy by $26 trillion, Fast Company, September 5, 2018; Catherine Bosley, Fighting Climate Change Will Help Economic Growth, Study Finds, Bloomberg, August 19, 2019; Matthew Kahn, Kamiar Mohaddes, Ryan Ng, etal, Long-Term Macroeconomic Effects of Climate Change: A Cross-Country Analysis, NBER Working Paper No. 26167, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2019; Joel Jaeger, Tackling Climate Change and Promoting Development: A ‘Win-Win’, Our World (ourworld.unu.edu), September 18, 2014; Michael Webber, How Oil-Loving, Frack-Happy Texas Could Lead the Low-Carbon Future: And get rich doing it, Texas Monthly, September 2019; Max Fawcett, The conversation Calgary needs to have: How does an oil city adjust to a new reality?, CBC News, September 12, 2019; Climate capitalists have serious money in climate-friendly investments, The Economist, September 21, 2019; Lauren Silva Laughlin, Green Investments Are in the Black, Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2019.

[11] Lauren Oakes, Playing Offense and Defense on Climate at the Same Time – We need to focus on responses to climate change that both reduce emissions and help people cope with an altered environment, Scientific American, August 26, 2019.

[12] Climate-Smart Development: Adding up the benefits of actions that help build prosperity, end poverty and combat climate change, The World Bank and ClimateWorks Foundation, 2014.

[13] Simon Henry, Climate change cannot be solved by governments alone. How can the private sector help?, World Economic Forum (weforum.org), November 21, 2017.

[14] Climate-Smart Development: Adding up the benefits of actions that help build prosperity, end poverty and combat climate change, The World Bank and ClimateWorks Foundation, 2014; Ann Hui, Climate change threatening stability of global food supply, UN report warns, Globe and Mail, August 8, 2019; Christopher Flavelle, Climate Change Threatens the World’s Food Supply, United Nations Warns, New York Times, August 8, 2019.

[15] David Roberts, Why the right’s usual smears don’t work on Greta Thunberg: She keeps the focus on science, and they hate it, Vox, September 26, 2019.

[16] Steve Denning, Implementing the One Viable Solution to Climate Change, Forbes, July 21, 2019. Also see, Mario Picazo, July set to smash record as hottest month in temperature history, Weather Network, July 20, 2019; Green-house-gas emissions are increasing the frequency of heatwaves: And it will get worse in the future, The Economist, July 25, 2019; Rosie Perper, July was likely the hottest month ever, and experts say it has ‘re-written climate history’, Business Insider, August 2, 2019; Mike Corder, Scientists link Europe heat wave to man-made global warming, Business Insider, August 2, 2019; July equalled, and maybe surpassed, the hottest month in recorded history, World Meteorological Organization (public.wmo.int), August 1, 2019; Steven Mufson, Chris Mooney, Juliet Eilperin, and John Muyskens, 2°C: Beyond the Limit – Extreme climate change has arrived in America, Washington Post, August 13, 2019; Fiona Harvey, One climate crisis disaster happening every week, UN warns, Guardian, July 7, 2019; Editorial Board, Global Warming is already here. Denying it is unforgiveable, Washington Post, August 18, 2019; Rebecca Henderson, Sophus Reinert, Polina Dekhtyar, and Amram Migdal, Climate Change in 2018: Implications for Business, Harvard Business Publishing, January 30, 2018.

[17] Victory Luke, Climate Action at local level makes a real impact: in the midst of confusion and fear over the environment, there are grounds for hope, The Irish Times, July 24, 2019.

[18] Three Top World Leaders Fighting the Climate Crisis, Climate Reality Project, November 1, 2016; It’s time to make climate change a business issue, CPA Canada (cpacanada.ca), August 14, 2019; Steve Denning, Implementing the One Viable Solution to Climate Change, Forbes, July 21, 2019.

[19] Climate change and the threat to companies: firms urgently need to rethink how they approach climate risk, The Economist, February 21, 2019. See for example, Daniel Tencer, 5 Things To Know in Business Today: Scheer’s Climate Plan Looks a Lot Like Industry’s Wish List, Huffington Post, June 20, 2019; Carl Meyer, Scheer touts industry-friendly climate plan, National Observer, June 19, 2019.

[20] Phillip Coorey, Climate ‘freight train’ leaves CEOs no choice, Financial Review, September 17, 2019. Also see, Patrick Durkin, Support for business activism, Financial Review, September 16, 2019.

[21] David Rivkin (President, International Bar Association), Plenary Session: The Role of Law in Accelerating Climate Action, Climate Action 2016: Catalyzing a Sustainable Future, May 6, 2016; David Estrin and Baroness Helena Kennedy (co-chairs), Achieving Justice and Human Rights in an Era of Climate Disruption, Climate Justice and Human Rights Task Force Report, International Bar Association, July 2014; Michael Gerrard and John Dernbach (editors), Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States: Summary & Key Recommendations, Environmental Law Institute, 2018; Ellen Gilmer, Wanted: ‘Legion of lawyers’ to fight climate change, E&E News, April 24, 2019; Jordan Yochim, Climate change and a changing profession: What future will we choose?, American Bar Association, January 8, 2019; Mitch Anderson, When Politics Fails, Call the Lawyers: It was legal teams – not politicians – that ultimately held the tobacco industry to account. Their next target? Perpetrators of climate change, Reasons to be cheerful, 2019. Also see, Pilita Clark, Should company lawyers do more on climate risk?, Financial Times, June 19, 2019; General Counsel lack climate change leadership, Global Legal Post, August 21, 2019.

[22] Amy Edmondson, Take a Trim Tab Approach to Climate Change, Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge (Business Research for Business Leaders), September 24, 2014.

[23] Michael Toffel and Auden Schendler, The Climate Needs Aggressive CEO Leadership, Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge (Business Research for Business Leaders), September 24, 2014. Also see, David Roberts, Ohio just passed the worst energy bill of the 21st century: a corrupt bailout for dinosaur power plants that screws renewable energy in the process, Vox, July 27 2019; Jessica Corbett, While Global Temps Soared, Study Shows US Media Coverage of Right-Wing Think Tanks’ Climate Lies Actually Rose Over the Past 5 Years, Common Dreams, July 25, 2019; Think Tanks That Deny Climate Science Get More Coverage Now Than Five Years Ago, Public Citizen, July 24, 2019; Dino Grandoni, The Energy 202: Want to address climate change? Fix campaign finance first, 2020 Democrats say, Washington Post, June 20, 2019; Jessica Kellner, Climate Change and Big Money in Politics, American Promise.net, April 17, 2019; Marianne Lavelle, Fossil Fuel Money to GOP Grows, and So Does Climate Divide, Inside Climate News.org, September 15, 2016; Diane Toomey, How Big Money in Politics Blocked U.S. Action on Climate Change, Yale Environment 360 (e360.yale.edu), May 10, 2017.

[24] Sumit Pant and Nirajan Mainali, Climate Change: We need to act now, The Himalayan, March 21, 2018.

[25] Michael Toffel and Auden Schendler, The Climate Needs Aggressive CEO Leadership, Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge (Business Research for Business Leaders), September 24, 2014.

[26] Eric Sigurdson, Overcoming the Forces of ‘Short-termism’ – corporate governance, principled leadership, and long-term sustainable value creation, Sigurdson Post, February 19, 2018; David Horsager, Trust Edge, 2012; WEF Leadership (Trust and Performance Equation Project prepared in collaboration with PwC), The Evolution of Trust in Business: From Delivery to Values, World Economic Forum, January 2015:

“Research across the world and statements by business leaders show consistently that, while trust may not always be front of mind, it is the foundation of doing business. Some businesses can succeed in the short term without building trust. But over the longer term, a business without trust eventually loses its licence to operate – in some cases irrevocably.”

… “Trusted companies have taken a long-term perspective in their thinking, and have used their fund of trust to create a buffer of credibility and sound reputation against potentially damaging events. When a crisis has struck, stakeholders have given these businesses more time, leeway and benefit of the doubt to respond and put things right.”

Also see, Amina Shahid and Dr. M. Azhar Shahid, Integrity and Trust: The Defining Principles of Great Workplaces, Journal of Management Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, October 1, 2013; Building a Corporate Reputation of Integrity, Ethics Resource Center (www.ethics.org/fellows), 2011.

[27] Climate Change: How To Fix It – Businesses, National Geographic (nationalgeographic.com); Kimberley Irby, Kaitlyn Klingensmith, Caroline Lucas, and Edwin Willig, Understanding Private Sector Risk to Climate Change and Designing Guidance for Engagement: bridging the gap between businesses and NGOs in climate resilience dialogue, A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan, DeepBlue.lib.umich.edu, April 2018. Also see, 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer: Global Report, Edelman.com; Richard Edelman, A crisis of trust: A warning to both business and government, Economist, The World In.com, 2016; Helen Sullivan, What can governments and leaders do when trust evaporates?, The Conversation, February 9, 2015; Trust Survey: Maintaining the social licence to operate, KPMG and Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2018.

[28] Kevin Moss, 3 Ways Businesses Can Lead the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy, World Resources Institute, May 21, 2019; Jo Confino, Sustainable corporations perform better financially, report finds, Guardian, September 23, 2014. Also see, Tensie Whelan and Carly Fink, The Comprehensive Business Case for Sustainability, Harvard Business Review, October 21, 2016; Dennis Carey, Brian Dumaine and Michael Useem, CEOs are suddenly having a change of heart about what their companies should stand for – and the diverging fates of 2 major corporations show why, Business Insider, September 6, 2019; Emily Chasan and Katie Linsell, Unilever, L’Oreal, Danone Deemed Most Ready for Climate Change, BNN Bloomberg, February 24, 2019.

[29] Steven Mufson, More U.S. businesses making changes in response to climate concerns, Washington Post, June 11, 2019; Sara Harrison, Companies Expect Climate Change to Cost Them $1 Trillion in 5 Years, Wired, June 4, 2019.

[30] Daniel Tencer, Oilsands Face Deep Trouble As ‘Death Toll’ Rings for Gasoline, Huffington Post, September 15, 2019; Mark Lewis, Wells, Wire, and Wheels – EROCI and the Tough Road Ahead for Oil, BNP Paribas Asset Management (investors-corner.bnpparibas-am.com), August 2019.

[31] Adele Peters, Fighting climate change could boost the global economy by $26 trillion, Fast Company, September 5, 2018. Also see, Helen Mountford, Amar Bhattacharya, Lord Nicholas Stern, etal, Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent Times, New Climate Economy, The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, newclimateeconomy.report, 2018.

[32] Helen Mountford, Amar Bhattacharya, Lord Nicholas Stern, etal, Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent Times, New Climate Economy, The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, newclimateeconomy.report, 2018.

[33] Nicolette Bartlett and Tom Coleman, Major Risk or Rosy Opportunity: are companies ready for climate change?, CDP, 2019; Brad Plumer, Companies See Climate Change Hitting Their Bottom Lines in the Next 5 Years, New York Times, June 4, 2019; Charles Riley, Climate change will cost companies $1 trillion. It also means huge opportunities, CNN Business, June 4, 2019. Also see, Hauke Engel, Per-Anders Enkvist, and Kimberly Henderson, How companies can adapt to climate change, Mckinsey, July 2015.

[34] Sara Harrison, Companies Expect Climate Change to Cost Them $1 Trillion in 5 Years, Wired, June 4, 2019; Dimitris Tsitsiragos, Climate Change is a Threat – and an opportunity – for the Private Sector, World Bank, January 13, 2016. Also see, Nicolette Bartlett and Tom Coleman, Major Risk or Rosy Opportunity: are companies ready for climate change?, CDP, 2019; Brad Plumer, Companies See Climate Change Hitting Their Bottom Lines in the Next 5 Years, New York Times, June 4, 2019; Charles Riley, Climate change will cost companies $1 trillion. It also means huge opportunities, CNN Business, June 4, 2019.

[35] Gayathri Ramkrishnan, Unilever’s climate-proofing strategy, Harvard Business School (digital.hbs.edu), November 2017; David Getik, CEO: Climate Change Costs Unilever €400 Million, NL Times, May 21, 2015. Also see, Dimitris Tsitsiragos, Climate Change is a Threat – and an opportunity – for the Private Sector, World Bank, January 13, 2016.

[36] Climate change and the threat to companies: firms urgently need to rethink how they approach climate risk, The Economist, February 21, 2019; Nicolette Bartlett and Tom Coleman, Major Risk or Rosy Opportunity: are companies ready for climate change?, CDP, 2019; Kimberly Amadeo, Climate Change Facts and Effect on the Economy, The Balance, May 23, 2019; Mary Ilyushina and Frederik Pleitgen, Fires, floods (and even bugs) are challenging Russia’s stance on the climate crisis, CNN, August 6, 2019; Georgi Kantchev, Wildfires and Floods push Russia to Revise its Stance on Climate Change – previously skeptical, government now aims to cap emissions, but opposition in energy sector remains strong, Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2019; Charles Schmidt, New Elevation Measure Shows Climate Change Could Quickly Swamp the Mekong Delta – surprise revelation means 12 million Vietnamese may need to retreat, Scientific American, August 28, 2019; Somini Sengupta and Weiyi Cai, A Quarter of Humanity Faces Looming Water Crises, New York Times, August 6, 2019; Sebastien Malo, Water bankruptcy looms for one in four people worldwide, and parts of Canada are at risk, National Post, August 6, 2019; Yusuf Khan, Goldman Sachs released a 34 page analysis of the impact of climate change. And the results are terrifying, Markets Insider, September 25, 2019.

[37] Gregory Wetherbee, Austin Baldwin, and James Ranville, It is raining plastic, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2019–1048; Jacinta Bowler, US Geological Survey Finds It’s Raining Plastic in the Rocky Mountains, Science Alert, August 15, 2019; Jen Christensen, ‘It is raining plastic’: Scientists find colorful microplastic in rain, CNN, August 14, 2019; Maanvi Singh, It’s raining plastic: microscopic fibers fall from the sky in Rocky Mountains, Guardian, August 13, 2019; Devika Desai, It’s raining plastic in Canada, scientists say. But no one knows the source or toxicity: Although the topic of microplastics — plastic particles smaller than a breadcrumb — is relatively new, research has proven its ability to pervade the planet’s most remote corners, National Post, August 27, 2019.

[38] Why is Climate Change Relevant for Business, ICIMOD.org (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development).

[39] Leo Shvedsky, Patagonia’s CEO is donating company’s entire $10M Trump tax cut to fight climate change, UpWorthy.com, November 28, 2018. Also see, Katherine Hayhoe and David Fahey, Fourth National Climate Assessment: Vol. 1 Climate Science Special Report (October 2017) and Vol. 2 Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States (November 2018), U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2017/2018; Emily Holden, Trump on own administration’s climate report: ‘I don’t believe it’, The Guardian, November 26, 2018.

[40] Tom Levitt, Should business leaders speak out more on climate change?, Guardian, August 5, 2015.

[41] Nicolette Bartlett and Tom Coleman, Major Risk or Rosy Opportunity: are companies ready for climate change?, CDP, 2019.

[42] James Temple, Missing climate goals could cost the world $20 trillion, MIT Technology Review, May 23, 2018; Marshall Burke, W. Matthew Davis, and Noah Diffenbaugh, Large Potential Reduction in Economic Damages under UN Mitigation Targets, Nature, Vol. 557, 2018;  Reuters, Climate Change will cost economy hundreds of billions of dollars, government says in sweeping report, CNBC, November 23, 2018; Jonathan Shieber, New US report says that climate change could cost nearly $500B per year by 2090, TechCrunch.com, November 23, 2018; Stephen Leahy, Hidden Costs of Climate Change Running Hundreds of billions a Year: a new report warns of high price tag on the impacts of global warming, from storm damage to health costs, National Geographic, September 27, 2017.

[43] David Roberts, We might get a climate debate after all. Here are 10 questions to ask candidates, Vox, July 3, 2019; Issue Brief: The National Security Impacts of Climate Change, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, December 2017; Annie Sneed, The Risk of Conflict Rises as the World Heats Up: ignoring the connections between climate and security poses risks for the U.S., Scientific American, July 22, 2019; Alex Ward, The Pentagon calls climate change a national security threat. Trump isn’t listening, Vox, January 18, 2019. Also see, Darren Major and Salimah Shivji, Canada’s military feeling the strain responding to climate change, CBC, June 24, 2019.

[44] Fiona Harvey, One climate crisis disaster happening every week, UN warns, Guardian, July 7, 2019.

[45] Marshall Shepherd, Why Climate Change Messaging Must Evolve Beyond Noting Record-Breaking Temperatures, Forbes, February 8, 2019.

[46] Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [hereinafter Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C], Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), October 8, 2018; Fourth National Climate Assessment: Vol. 1 Climate Science Special Report (October 2017) and Vol. 2 Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States (November 2018), U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2017/2018;

[47] Yusuf Khan, Goldman Sachs released a 34 page analysis of the impact of climate change. And the results are terrifying, Markets Insider, September 25, 2019.

[48] Adam Tooze, Why Central Banks Need to Step Up on Global Warming: A decade after the world bailed out finance, it’s time for finance to bail out the world, Foreign Policy, July 20, 2019; Robinson Meyer, How Climate Change Could Trigger the Next Global Financial Crisis, The Atlantic, August 1, 2019.

[49] Editorial, Wake up, Republicans. Even corporations are calling for action on climate change, Washington Post, May 15, 2019.

[50] Rick Duke, Leaving the Paris Agreement Is a Bad Deal for the United States, Foreign Policy, May 19, 2019.

[51] James Ellsmoor, Climate Emergency Declarations: How Cities Are Leading the Charge, Forbes, July 20, 2019.

[52] For example, see: Clark Mindock, Trump declares war on ‘unthinkable’ Green New Deal in speech touting environmental record: ‘I will not stand for it’, Independent, July 8, 2019; Lance Williams, Recording Reveals Oil Industry Execs Laughing at Trump Access, Politico, March 23, 2019; Oliver Milman, ‘No Shame’: how the Trump administration granted big oil’s wishlist, Guardian, December 12, 2017; David Roberts, Ohio just passed the worst energy bill of the 21st century: a corrupt bailout for dinosaur power plants that screws renewable energy in the process, Vox, July 27 2019.

[53] Why Cities Matter, Global Covenant of Mayors (globalcovenantofmayors.org); Mary Wales, Three Cities Leading the Way for Climate Change, Natures Path, January 15, 2019; James Griffiths, Two-thirds of world population will live in cities by 2050: UN Report, CNN, October 15, 2019; Sam Meredith, Two-thirds of global population will live in cities by 2050, UN says, CNBC, May 17, 2018; 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN, United Nations (un.org), May 16, 2018; World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas, United Nations (un.org), July 10, 2014.

[54] Scott Andrew and Saeed Ahmed, New York City declares a climate emergency, the first US city with more than a million residents to do so, CNN, June 27, 2019; Ainslie Cruickshank, On the frontlines of climate change, more local governments declare an emergency, Toronto Star, July 9, 2019; Matthew Taylor, London mayor unveils plan to tackle ‘climate emergency’, Guardian, December 11, 2018; Ivan Dikov, Paris Declares ‘Climate Emergency’ Like London, New York City, European Views, July 9, 2019. Also see, Angel Hsu, Amy Weinfurter, Andrew Feierman, Yihao Xie, Zhi Yi Yeo, Katharina Lütkehermöller, Takeshi Kuramochi, Swithin Lui, Niklas Höhne, and Mark Roelfsema, Global Climate Action from Cities, Regions, and Businesses, research report published by Data Driven Yale, NewClimate Institute, and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2018; Maura Forrest, Ottawa joins growing number of Canadian cities to declare a climate emergency. But what does it mean?, National Post, April 25, 2019; Andrew Graham, London city councillors declare climate emergency, Global News, April 23, 2019; Edmonton latest Canadian city to declare climate emergency, The Weather Network, August 29, 2019; James Ellsmoor, Climate Emergency Declarations: How Cities Are Leading the Charge, Forbes, July 20, 2019.

[55] James Ellsmoor, Climate Emergency Declarations: How Cities Are Leading the Charge, Forbes, July 20, 2019.

[56] Zack Beauchamp, The right-wing populist wave is a threat to the climate – The Amazon rainforest fires reveal a lot about this political movement, Vox, August 22, 2019. Also see, Yu Luo, Jiaying Zhoa, and Rebecca Todd, Climate explained: Why are climate skeptics often right-wing conservatives?, The Conversation, September 18, 2019.

[57] Rachel Aiello, Canada’s House of Commons has declared a national climate emergency, CTV News, June 17, 2019.

[58] David Roberts, Don’t bother waiting for conservatives to come around on climate change, Vox, April 26, 2019; Abby Innes, Conservative government climate policy is more dangerous than one of open denial, London School of Economics and Political Science: British Politics and Policy, April 29, 2019; Yu Luo, Jiaying Zhoa, and Rebecca Todd, Climate explained: Why are climate skeptics often right-wing conservatives?, The Conversation, September 18, 2019; Zack Beauchamp, The right-wing populist wave is a threat to the climate – The Amazon rainforest fires reveal a lot about this political movement, Vox, August 22, 2019; Adam Forrest, Trump administration to create panel to deny climate change facts almost all scientists agree on, Independent, February 25, 2019; Alejandro De La Garza, President Trump Renews Climate Change Denial Days After Defense Department Releases Daunting Report on Its Effects, Time, January 20, 2019; David Roberts, Why conservatives keep gaslighting the nation about climate change, Vox, October 31, 2018; Damien Cave, Australia Wilts From Climate Change. Why Can’t Its Politicians Act?, New York Times, August 21, 2018; William Hague, The time for denial is over. Conservatives have to take the climate crisis seriously, The Telegraph, April 22, 2019; Rebecca Byrnes, Why it is important to work with conservative governments like Australia’s on climate change, London School of Economics and Political Science: Grantham Research Institute on Climate change and the Environment, May 28, 2019; Adam Vaughan, Climate scepticism still rife among Tory MPs – poll, Guardian, September 10, 2014; Matt Gurney, Andrew Scheer’s cold, hard climate change calculus, Maclean’s, May 2, 2019; Gerald Kutney, Dear Conservatives, Climate Change is the Real Threat, Not a Carbon Tax – Doug Ford and Andrew Scheer seem oblivious to this threat, or are willing to put politics ahead of people and the planet, Huffington Post, March 27, 2019; Aaron Wheery, By claiming Ontario’s done its ‘fair share’, Doug Ford pushes the climate burden west, CBC, April 25, 2019; Julian Shen-Berro, Fight Over Oregon Climate Change Bill Erupts in Chaos After GOP Walks Out, Huffington Post, June 20, 2019. Also see, Daniel Tencer, 5 Things To Know in Business Today: Scheer’s Climate Plan Looks a Lot Like Industry’s Wish List, Huffington Post, June 20, 2019; Carl Meyer, Scheer touts industry-friendly climate plan, National Observer, June 19, 2019; John Ivison, Scheer climate plan gives voters what they want – expressions of concern with no actual cost, National Post, June 19, 2019; Gary Mason, The Conservative climate plan is a sad joke, Globe and Mail, June 25, 2019; Mark Steel, Parliament has finally declared a ‘climate emergency’. Well that’s the environment sorted then, Independent.co.uk, May 2, 2019; Martin Hultman, Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism, Chalmers University of Technology (Sweden), August 2018; Ishaan Tharoor, The world’s climate emergency is getting harder to ignore, Washington Post, July 30, 2019.

[59] Abby Innes, Conservative government climate policy is more dangerous than one of open denial, London School of Economics and Political Science: British Politics and Policy, April 29, 2019. Also see, Eric Hothaus, Trump’s ‘environmental leadership’ is sending us to a climate disaster, Washington Post, July 9, 2019; Hayley Miller, Mike Pence Claims Trump administration ‘Will Always Follow the Science’ On Climate Change, Huffington Post, June 23, 2019;  Steve Benen, Despite Pence’s claim, Team Trump doesn’t ‘follow the science’ on climate, MSNBC, June 25, 2019; Jack Holmes, Mike Pence’s Climate Change Two-Step Shows Removing Trump Won’t Fix the Republican Party’s Issues, Esquire, June 24, 2019; Martin Pengelly, Mike Pence repeatedly refuses to say climate crisis is a threat to US, Guardian, June 23, 2019; Marianne Lavelle, 5 Shades of Climate Denial, All on Display in the Trump White House, InsideClimateNews, June 9, 2017; Peter Stubley, Trump dismisses need for climate change action: ‘We have the cleanest water we’ve ever had, we have the cleanest air’, Independent, June 29, 2019; Editorial, The real carbon tax is the money provinces are spending on lawyers, Globe and Mail, July 2, 2019; John Paul Tasker, Scheer vows to scrap clean fuel standard, calls Liberal plan a ‘secret fuel tax’, CBC, July 8, 2019; Maegan Vazquez, Trump takes aim at Green New Deal while touting administration’s ‘environmental leadership’, CNN, July 8, 2019; Anna Phillips, Few of Trump’s environmental claims stand up to scrutiny, Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2019; Philip Duffy, How the Trump Administration Is Torpedoing Climate Science: one way is to attack the inconvenient truths in the authoritative National Climate Assessment, Scientific American, July 9, 2019; Scott Waldman, Trump Administration Officials Scrubbed Climate Change from Press Releases: dire predictions of recent USGS study on sea level rise were removed from the agency’s release, Scientific American, July 8, 2019; Lee Moran, Dan Rather Rips Donald Trump’s Environmental Spin With ‘Crime Scene’ Analogy: veteran journalist called Trump’s most recent claims ‘outrageous’, Huffington Post, July 11, 2019; Gary Mason, Donald Trump’s all-out assault on the environment, Globe and Mail, July 11, 2019; Aaron Wherry, Conservatives’ climate plan would do less, cost more, study argues, CBC, July 10, 2019; Helena Bottemiller Evich, Trump’s USDA buried sweeping climate change response plan, Politico, July 18, 2019; James Rainey, GOP senators wanted to stop climate change training for weathercasters. It backfired, Los Angeles Times, July 24, 2019; Jonathon Gatehouse, Why Andrew Scheer’s climate plan won’t hit Canada’s Paris targets, CBC, July 30, 2019; Laura Annalise Tanguay, Jenna Davidson, and Luisa Sotomayer, Doug Ford is clear-cutting Ontario’s environmental laws, The Conversation, July 25, 2019; Robert Benzie, Ontario government urges winding down of conservation programs to conserve cash, Toronto Star, August 20, 2019; Rene Marsh and Ellie Kaufman, EPA ‘exceeds’ goals on cutting back environmental regulations, according to internal watchdog, CNN, August 9, 2019; Ben Geman, 29 states and cities sue Trump administration over weakening of climate rules, Axios, August 13, 2019; Nadja Popovich, Livia Albeck-Ripka, and Kendra Pierre-Louis, 84 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump, New York Times, August 29, 2019; Associated Press, Trump admin to roll back rules on climate-changing methane, NBC News, August 29, 2019; Michael Collins and John Fritze, On climate, Trump says he won’t lose nation’s wealth to ‘dreams and windmills’, USA Today, August 26, 2019; Amanda Connolly, Climate change might benefit Canada – but not enough to outweigh costs: expert, Global News, September 1, 2019; Editorial Board, Editorial: Trump is trying to bully California and carmakers into giving up on climate change, Los Angeles Times, September 6, 2019; Editorial Board, A Cruel Parody of Antitrust Enforcement – The Justice Department is roughing up Mr. Trump’s political enemies and threatening the environment, New York Times, September 6, 2019; Timothy Puko and Ben Foldy, Justice Department Launches Antitrust Probe into Four Auto Makers, Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2019; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Trump can’t erase a decade of clean air progress with a Sharpie, Washington Post, September 8, 2019; Anna Phillips, Trump plans to revoke a key California environmental power, state officials vow to fight, Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2019; Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis, Trump administration to revoke California’s power to set stricter auto emissions standards, Washington Post, September 17, 2019.

[60] Amy Edmondson, Take a Trim Tab Approach to Climate Change, Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge (Business Research for Business Leaders), September 24, 2014.

[61] Frank Bruni, The Sunny Side of Greed, New York Times, July 1, 2015.

[62] Emily Cadei, How Corporate America Propelled Same-Sex Marriage, Newsweek, June 30, 2015; Frank Bruni, The Sunny Side of Greed, New York Times, July 1, 2015; Gail O’Brien, Why More Companies Are Speaking Out on Social Issues, Business Ethics, July 13, 2015; Diane Smith-Gander, When should business leaders speak out on social issues?, The Resolution, May 15, 2019; Chris Murphy, Why is social responsibility important to a business?, Investopedia, June 18, 2018. Also see, Eric Sigurdson, Leadership Reimagined: the ‘CEO Statesman’ and ‘Lawyer Statesman’ in a Time of Political, Economic and Social Fragmentation – statespersonship is good for business, good for institutions, and good for a divided and disaffected society, Sigurdson Post, May 31, 2019.

[63] See generally, Michael Toffel and Auden Schendler, The Climate Needs Aggressive CEO Leadership, Harvard Business School, Working Knowledge (hbswk.hbs.edu), September 24, 2014.

[64] Larry Fink, Annual Letter to CEOs: A Sense of Purpose, BlackRock.com, January 2018; Aaron K. Chatterji and Michael W. Toffel, The New CEO Activists, Harvard Business Review, January-February 2018; CEO Activism in 2017: High Noon in the C-Suite, Weber Shandwick & KRC Research, 2017; CEO Activism in 2018: The Purposeful CEO, Weber Shandwick & KRC Research, 2018; 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer: Expectations for CEOs, Edelman.com, 2018; Alan Murray, America’s CEOs Seek a New Purpose for the Corporation, Fortune, August 19, 2019; CEO Activism: Trend Brief, Catalyst.org, August 23, 2019.

[65] Simon Mainwaring, 2017 Cone Communications CSR Study: Consumers Want Brands That Share Their Values & Beliefs, Medium, July 6, 2017; CEDA national poll: Australians expect more from business than just profits, CEDA.com.au; 2019 Company Pulse: A nationwide survey of the general public and business leaders on expectations of business and business priorities, CEDA.com.au, 2019; Patrick Durkin, Support for business activism, Financial Review, September 16, 2019; Ben Butler, Australians reject Coalition attacks on businesses promoting social issues, The Guardian, September 15, 2019.

[66] Claudine Gartenberg and George Serafeim, 181 Top CEOs Have Realized Companies Need a Purpose Beyond Profit, Harvard Business Review, August 20, 2019.

[67] Mark Mizruchi, Why the Decline in Corporate Statesmanship?, Harvard Business Review, April 24, 2013. Also see, Eric Sigurdson, Leadership Reimagined: the ‘CEO Statesman’ and ‘Lawyer Statesman’ in a Time of Political, Economic and Social Fragmentation – statespersonship is good for business, good for institutions, and good for a divided and disaffected society, Sigurdson Post, May 31, 2019; Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Strategy and Geopolitical Risk in a G-Zero World: Inequality, Polarized Democracies, and the shifting economic and political landscape, Sigurdson Post, May 31, 2018; Larry Fink, Larry Fink’s 2019 Letter to CEOs: Purpose & Profit, BlackRock.com, January 2019; Corporate Governance: Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans’, Business Roundtable, August 19, 2019; Alan Murray, America’s CEOs Seek a New Purpose for the Corporation, Fortune, August 19, 2019; Jenna McGregor, Group of top CEOs says maximizing shareholder profits no longer can be the primary goal of corporations, Washington Post, August 19, 2019; Anders Melin and Jeff Green, JPMorgan’s Dimon Among CEOs Rejecting Investor-Centric Model, Bloomberg, August 19, 2019; Claudine Gartenberg and George Serafeim, 181 Top CEOs Have Realized Companies Need a Purpose Beyond Profit, Harvard Business Review, August 20, 2019.

[68] Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine, The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership: most CEOs and Boards believe their main duty is to maximize shareholder value. It’s not, Harvard Business Review, May-June 2017. Also see, Elliot Schwartz, In the Nations Interest: Business Statesmanship, CED.org; Mark Mizruchi, Why the Decline in Corporate Statesmanship?, Harvard Business Review, April 24, 2013; Elliot Schwartz, Business Statesmanship, Trustee Call (ced.org), June 19, 2013; Working Paper: Business Statesmanship and Sustainable Capitalism: Can Corporate Leaders Help Put America and American Business Back on Track?, Committee for Economic Development (ced.org), May 28, 2013.

[69] Andrew Hill, The limits of the pursuit of profit, Financial Times, September 22, 2019; Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim, Corporate Sustainability: A Strategy?, Harvard Business School & Management Unit Working Paper No. 19-065, January 1, 2019; Tensie Whelan and Carly Fink, The Comprehensive Business Case for Sustainability, Harvard Business Review, October 21, 2016; Matt Power, Sustaining a Triple Bottom Line: companies that integrate economics with environmental and social concerns also tend to outperform their less-savvy competitors, GreenBuilderMedia.com, August 10, 2017; Business this week, The Economist, September 9, 1999. Also see generally, Triple Bottom Line, Investopedia:

“Triple bottom line (TBL) is a concept which seeks to broaden the focus on the financial bottom line by businesses to include social and environmental responsibilities. A triple bottom line measures a company’s degree of social responsibility, its economic value, and its environmental impact.

The phrase was introduced in 1994 by John Elkington and later used in his 1997 book “Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.” A key challenge with the triple bottom line, according to Elkington, is the difficulty of measuring the social and environmental bottom lines….”

[70] 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[71] Corporate Governance: Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans’ – Updated Statement Moves Away from Shareholder Primacy, Includes Commitment to All Stakeholders, Business Roundtable, August 19, 2019. Also see, Alan Murray, America’s CEOs Seek New Purpose for the Corporation, Fortune, August 19, 2019.

[72] Eric Sigurdson, Strategic Management and Leadership – From the Legal Industry to Financial Services to Healthcare: ‘what got you here won’t get you there’, Sigurdson Post, July 30, 2018; Eric Sigurdson, An Integrated Approach to Strategy Implementation and Change Management – From the Legal Industry to Financial Services to Healthcare: ‘a fundamental leadership and management skillset, Sigurdson Post, August 31, 2018.

[73] Eric Sigurdson, Strategic Management and Leadership – From the Legal Industry to Financial Services to Healthcare: ‘what got you here won’t get you there’, Sigurdson Post, July 30, 2018; Eric Sigurdson, An Integrated Approach to Strategy Implementation and Change Management – From the Legal Industry to Financial Services to Healthcare: ‘a fundamental leadership and management skillset, Sigurdson Post, August 31, 2018.

[74] David Robson, The ‘3.5% rule’: How a small minority can change the world, BBC.com, May 14, 2019.

[75] Laurie Mazur, Despairing about the Climate Crisis? Read This: A conversation with scientist Susanne Moser about climate communication, the benefits of functional denial, and the varied flavors of hope, Earth Island Journal (earthisland.org), July 22, 2019.

[76] Somini Sengupta, Climate Protesters and World Leaders: Same Planet, Different Worlds, New York Times, September 21, 2019.

[77] Gerald Kutney, Dear Conservatives, Climate Change is the Real Threat, Not a Carbon Tax – Doug Ford and Andrew Scheer seem oblivious to this threat, or are willing to put politics ahead of people and the planet, Huffington Post, March 27, 2019. Also see, Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, How GOP Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science, New York Times, June 3, 2017; Suzanne Goldenberg, Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change, Guardian, December 20, 2013; Alexander Kaufman, Fossil Fuel Industries Outspend Clean Energy Advocates on Climate Lobbying By 10 To 1, Huffington Post, July 18, 2018.

[78] Ben Soltoff, More than a Moonshot: Why Solving Climate Change is Harder than Putting a Man on the Moon, Yale Center for Business and the Environment, July 23, 2019.

[79] Gerald Kutney, Dear Conservatives, Climate Change is the Real Threat, Not a Carbon Tax – Doug Ford and Andrew Scheer seem oblivious to this threat, or are willing to put politics ahead of people and the planet, Huffington Post, March 27, 2019. Also see, Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, How GOP Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science, New York Times, June 3, 2017; Suzanne Goldenberg, Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change, Guardian, December 20, 2013; Alexander Kaufman, Fossil Fuel Industries Outspend Clean Energy Advocates on Climate Lobbying By 10 To 1, Huffington Post, July 18, 2018; Yu Luo, Jiaying Zhoa, and Rebecca Todd, Climate explained: Why are climate skeptics often right-wing conservatives?, The Conversation, September 18, 2019.

[80] Becky Ferreira, Centuries-Old Sea Captain Diaries Are Confirming Modern Climate Science, Vice, June 28, 2019; Fritz Reusswig, History and Future of the Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warning, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2013; Climate Change, United Nations (un.org).

[81] Timothy Egan, Fake meat is our best chance to save ourselves, because nothing else will, National Post, June 21, 2019; Timothy Egan, Fake Meat Will Save Us, New York Times, June 21, 2019. Also see, Nicola Davison, The Anthropocene Epoch: have we entered a new phase of planetary history?, Guardian, May 30, 2019; Damian Carrington, The Anthropocene epoch: scientists declare dawn of human-influenced age, Guardian, August 29, 2016; Joseph Stromberg, What is the Anthropocene and Are We in It?, Smithsonian.com, January 2013.

[82] Simon Mainwaring, Why and How Business Must Tackle Climate Change Now, Forbes, October 25, 2018.

[83] Ethan Rotberg, Businesses urged to take steps to respond to climate change, CPA Canada (cpacanada.ca), December 7, 2018.

[84] Ken Silverstein, Institutional Investors Have More Power than Governments to Shape Climate Future, Forbes, July 26, 2019; Amy Harder, Trump and Republicans are isolated on climate change, Axios, March 18, 2019; Amy Harder, Wall Street is starting to care about climate change, Axios, June 26, 2017; Charles Riley, Investors turn up the heat on companies over climate change, CNN, September 18, 2019;

[85] Amy Harder, Trump and Republicans are isolated on climate change, Axios, March 18, 2019; Amy Harder, Wall Street is starting to care about climate change, Axios, June 26, 2017.

[86] Amy Harder, Corporate American isn’t backing Trump on climate, Axios, April 17, 2017.

[87] Fred Krupp, CEOs need to Fill the Leadership Void on Climate Policy, Fortune, February 21, 2019.

[88] Simon Mainwaring, 2017 Cone Communications CSR Study: Consumers Want Brands That Share Their Values & Beliefs, Medium, July 6, 2017.

[89] Ken Silverstein, Big Business Steps Up For Clean Energy, Even As Washington Stands Down, Forbes, April 1, 2019.

[90] Editorial Board, Editorial: Trump is trying to bully California and carmakers into giving up on climate change, Los Angeles Times, September 6, 2019; Editorial Board, A Cruel Parody of Antitrust Enforcement – The Justice Department is roughing up Mr. Trump’s political enemies and threatening the environment, New York Times, September 6, 2019; Timothy Puko and Ben Foldy, Justice Department Launches Antitrust Probe into Four Auto Makers, Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2019; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Trump can’t erase a decade of clean air progress with a Sharpie, Washington Post, September 8, 2019. Also see, Anna Phillips, Trump plans to revoke a key California environmental power, state officials vow to fight, Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2019; Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis, Trump administration to revoke California’s power to set stricter auto emissions standards, Washington Post, September 17, 2019.

[91] Coral Davenport and Hiroko Tabuchi, Automakers, Rejecting Trump Pollution Rule, Strike a Deal with California, New York Times, July 25, 2019. Also see, Anna Phillips and Tony Barboza, California reaches climate deal with automakers, spurning Trump, Los Angeles Times, July 25, 2019; Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis, Major automakers strike climate deal with California, rebuffing Trump on proposed mileage freeze, Washington Post, July 25, 2019; Ben Geman, Big automakers go around Trump with California emissions deal, Axios, July 25, 2019; Caitlin Oprysko, Trump slams auto execs as ‘foolish’ after they bucked his emissions rules rollback, Politico, August 21, 2019.

[92] Anna Phillips, Automakers say Trump’s plan to weaken pollution standards would hurt their bottom line, Los Angeles Times, June 6, 2019.

[93] Laurie Mazur, Despairing about the Climate Crisis? Read This: A conversation with scientist Susanne Moser about climate communication, the benefits of functional denial, and the varied flavors of hope, Earth Island Journal (earthisland.org), July 22, 2019.

[94] Fred Krupp, CEOs need to Fill the Leadership Void on Climate Policy, Fortune, February 21, 2019. Also see, Abba Mikulska, Investor pressure is driving climate action at fossil fuel companies, Axios, July 31, 2019.

[95] Larry Fink, Larry Fink’s 2019 Letter to CEOs: Purpose & Profit, BlackRock.com, January 2019.

[96] Fred Krupp, CEOs need to Fill the Leadership Void on Climate Policy, Fortune, February 21, 2019; Alliance of CEO Leaders, An open letter from business to world leaders: ‘Be ambitious, and together we can address climate change’, World Economic Forum, November 29, 2018; How Can Companies Show Leadership on Climate Change?, World Resources Institute, wri.org; Tom Murray, The 4 critical steps to climate leadership, Environmental Defense Fund and Business (business.edf.org), December 4, 2018; Simon Mainwaring, Why and How Business Must Tackle Climate Change Now, Forbes, October 25, 2018; Chunka Mui, How Business Leaders Can Lead on Climate Change – Right Now. 3 Lessons From the U.S. Military, Forbes, September 22, 2019.

[97] Science Based Targets: driving ambitious corporate climate action – how to set a science based target, Science Based Targets.org.

[98] Re100 Companies: the world’s most influential companies, committed to 100% renewable power, there100.org.; Rosemary Feitelberg, New Balance Commits to RE100 and U.N. Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, WWD.com, July 26, 2019.

[99] Project Gigaton, Walmart Sustainability Hub (walmartsustainabilityhub.com).

[100] Loopstore.com.

[101] Erin Corbett, Some Big Brands Are Turning to Reusable Containers to Reduce Plastic Waste, Fortune, January 24, 2019; Saabira Chaudhuri, The World’s Biggest Brands Want You to Refill Your Orange Juice and Deodorant, Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2019.

[102] Sustainable Food Policy Alliance, foodpolicyalliance.org.

[103] The Global Food Industry’s Public Comment in Support of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), danonenorthamerica.com, 2018.

[104] Danielle Wiener-Bronner, Coke and Pepsi abandon the plastics lobby, CNN, July 30, 2019; Perry Wheeler, Chemical and plastics industry and ALEC conspiring to block communities from acting on plastic pollution crisis, GreenPeace.org, March 1, 2019; Sharon Lerner, Waste Only: How the plastics industry is fighting to keep polluting the world, Intercept, July 20, 2019.

[105] Stephen Leahy, Hidden Costs of Climate Change Running Hundreds of Billions a Year, National Geographic, September 27, 2017.

[106] Business and the Fourth Wave of Environmentalism: Findings from Environmental Defense Fund’s 2018 Fourth Wave Adoption Benchmark Survey, Environmental Defense Fund, 2018.

[107] Associated Press, Trump admin to roll back rules on climate-changing methane, NBC News, August 29, 2019; Clifford Krauss, Trump’s Methane Rule Rollback Divides Oil and Gas Industry, New York Times, August 29, 2019; Editorial Board, The Climate Rollback That’s Too Much Even for Big Oil, Bloomberg, August 30, 2019; Ben Geman, Corporate heavyweights split with Trump on energy regulatory rollbacks, Axios, August 30, 2019.

[108] Andre Dua, Liz Hilton Segel, and Susan Lund, It’s Time for a C-Level Role Dedicated to Reskilling Workers, Harvard Business Review, September 3, 2019; Alanna Mitchell, Yes, climate change can be beaten by 2050. Here’s how – A carbon-free world can be a reality. What would that mean for our jobs, homes and lives?, Maclean’s, July 11, 2019; Christiana Figueres, How to create jobs by tackling climate change, World Economic Forum, September 23, 2014.

[109] Victory Luke, Climate Action at local level makes a real impact: in the midst of confusion and fear over the environment, there are grounds for hope, The Irish Times, July 24, 2019.

[110] Max Boykoff, How to Talk Effectively about Climate Change: our conversation have been stuck, but a new book lays out a number of ways to get them flowing productively, Scientific American, July 22, 2019.

[111] Sarah Sloat, Climate Change Anxiety: Researcher Shares Tips to Avoid Feeling Overwhelmed, Inverse.com, July 21, 2019.

[112] Victory Luke, Climate Action at local level makes a real impact: in the midst of confusion and fear over the environment, there are grounds for hope, The Irish Times, July 24, 2019.

[113] Matt McGrath, ‘Triple whammy’ threatens UN action on climate change, BBC News, June 26, 2019.

[114] Jonathan Foley, The Three Most Important Graphs in Climate Change, Medium, June 3, 2019.

[115] Christina Nunez, Causes and Effects of Climate Change, National Geographic, January 22, 2019; Climate Change Science: Overview of Climate Change Science, EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency); Climate Change: How Do We Know?, NASA: Global Climate Change (climate.nasa.gov/evidence). Also see, Jonathan Watts, ‘No doubt left’ about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts, Guardian, July 24, 2019; Nicole Mortillaro, Recent Warming over the past 100 years is not part of a natural process, studies find, CBC, July 24, 2019; Debhorah Netburn, Earth warmed faster in the last few decades than the previous 1,900 years, study says, Los Angeles Times, July 24, 2019; Raphael Neukom, Nathan Steiger, etal, No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era, Nature, Volume 571, July 25, 2019; Raphael Neukom, Louis Barboza, Michael Erb, etal, Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era, Nature Geoscience, July 24, 2019; Stefan Bronnimann, Jorg Franke, etal, Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions, Nature Geoscience, July 24, 2019; John Brooke, Michael Bevis, and Steve Rissing, How Understanding the History of the Earth’s Climate Can Offer Hope Amid Crisis, Time, September 20, 2019.

[116] Brandon Miller and Wayne Drash, Greenhouse gases reach record levels, report finds, CNN, August 12, 2019; Jessica Blunden and Derek Arndt (editors), State of the Climate in 2018, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 100, No. 9, 2019.

[117] Christina Nunez, Causes and Effects of Climate Change, National Geographic, January 22, 2019.

[118] Climate Change Science: Overview of Climate Change Science, EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency).

[119] Climate Change: The Basics, Climate Atlas of Canada (climateatlas.ca). Also see, Europe warming faster than expected due to climate change, Science Daily, August 28, 2019.

[120] Christina Nunez, Causes and Effects of Climate Change, National Geographic, January 22, 2019; Climate Change, United Nations (un.org); Climate Change: The Basics, Climate Atlas of Canada (climateatlas.ca); IPCC Publications and Reports (ipcc.ch/reports); Climate Change Science: Overview of Climate Change Science, EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency); Which Industries and activities emit the most carbon?, Guardian, April 28, 2011; Sandra Laville, Single-use plastics a serious climate change hazard, study warns, Guardian, May 15, 2019; Lisa Anne Hamilton, Steven Feit, etal, Plastic & Climate: the hidden costs of a plastic planet, Center for International Environmental Law, etal, 2019. Also see, Nicole Mortillaro, Recent Warming over the past 100 years is not part of a natural process, studies find, CBC, July 24, 2019; Debhorah Netburn, Earth warmed faster in the last few decades than the previous 1,900 years, study says, Los Angeles Times, July 24, 2019; Raphael Neukom, Nathan Steiger, etal, No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era, Nature, Volume 571, July 25, 2019; Raphael Neukom, Louis Barboza, Michael Erb, etal, Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era, Nature Geoscience, July 24, 2019; Stefan Bronnimann, Jorg Franke, etal, Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions, Nature Geoscience, July 24, 2019.

[121] Christina Nunez, Causes and Effects of Climate Change, National Geographic, January 22, 2019; Climate Change, United Nations (un.org).

[122] Christina Nunez, Causes and Effects of Climate Change, National Geographic, January 22, 2019; Climate Change, United Nations (un.org).

[123] Christina Nunez, Causes and Effects of Climate Change, National Geographic, January 22, 2019; Climate Change, United Nations (un.org).

[124] Gloom from the climate-change front line, Economist, August 10, 2019; Madeleine Gregory, The Arctic is on Fire, and It Might be Creating a Vicious Climate ‘Feedback Loop’, Vice, July 29, 2019; What are climate change feedback loops?, Guardian, January 5, 2011.

[125] Jonathan Foley, The Three Most Important Graphs in Climate Change, Medium, June 3, 2019.

[126] Christina Nunez, Causes and Effects of Climate Change, National Geographic, January 22, 2019.

[127] Christina Nunez, Causes and Effects of Climate Change, National Geographic, January 22, 2019; John Brooke, Michael Bevis, and Steve Rissing, How Understanding the History of the Earth’s Climate Can Offer Hope Amid Crisis, Time, September 20, 2019.

[128] Ed Pilkington, The carbon catcher, Guardian, May 24, 2008; What are climate change feedback loops?, Guardian, January 5, 2011; John Brooke, Michael Bevis, and Steve Rissing, How Understanding the History of the Earth’s Climate Can Offer Hope Amid Crisis, Time, September 20, 2019.

[129] Climate Change Science: Overview of Climate Change Science, EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency).

[130] Christina Nunez, Causes and Effects of Climate Change, National Geographic, January 22, 2019; Climate Change Science: Overview of Climate Change Science, EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Also see, Climate Change: How Do We Know?, NASA: Global Climate Change (climate.nasa.gov/evidence); Stephen Leahy, ‘Off-the-charts’ heat to affect millions in U.S. in coming decades: within 60 years, hot days in the U.S. could be so intense that the current heat index can’t measure them, National Geographic, July 16, 2019; Jessie Yeung, By 2050, London’s climate will be as warm as Barcelona’s, says new study, CNN, July 11, 2019; James Griffiths, What happens when parts of South Asia become unlivable? The climate crisis is already displacing millions, CNN, July 17, 2019; Robinson Meyer, California’s Wildfires Are 500 Percent Larger Due to Climate Change: each degree of warming causes way more fire than the previous degree of warming did. And that‘s a really big deal, The Atlantic, July 16, 2019; Colette Derworiz, Scientists say definite link between climate change and increased, severe forest fires in Alberta and B.C., Globe and Mail, June 9, 2019; Rosanna Xia, Must Reads: Destruction from sea level rise in California could exceed worst wildfires and earthquakes, new research shows, Los Angeles Times, March 13, 2019; M.O. Cuthbert, Tom Gleeson, Nils Moosdorf, Kevin Befus, A. Schneider, Jens Hartmann, and B. Lehner, Global Patterns and dynamics of climate-groundwater interactions, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 9, Issue 2, February 2019; Brad Plumer, The World’s Oceans Are in Danger, Major Climate Change Report Warns, New York Times, September 25, 2019.

[131] Christina Nunez, Causes and Effects of Climate Change, National Geographic, January 22, 2019; Climate Change Science: Overview of Climate Change Science, EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency); Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [hereinafter Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C], Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), October 8, 2018; Fourth National Climate Assessment: Vol. 1 Climate Science Special Report (October 2017) and Vol. 2 Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States (November 2018), U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2017/2018. Also see, Melanie Green, Depression, anxiety, PTSD: Climate change is taking a toll on our mental health, experts say, Toronto Star, July 8, 2019; James Griffiths, What happens when parts of South Asia become unlivable? The climate crisis is already displacing millions, CNN, July 17, 2019; Charles Schmidt, New Elevation Measure Shows Climate Change Could Quickly Swamp the Mekong Delta – surprise revelation means 12 million Vietnamese may need to retreat, Scientific American, August 28, 2019; Christopher Flavelle, ‘Toxic Stew’ Stirred Up by Disasters Poses Long-Term Danger, New Findings Show, New York Times, July 15, 2019; Chemical Releases Caused By Natural Hazard Events and Disasters, Information for Public Health Authorities, World Health Organization, 2018; Jen Christensen, Climate crisis might be behind the rise of mysterious superbug C. auris, study suggests, CNN, July 23, 2019; Katharine Murphy, Australian Medical Association declares climate change a health emergency, Guardian, September 2, 2019; WHO calls for urgent action to protect health from climate change – Sign the call, World Health Organization; Maya Earls, Major Medical Groups Release Call to Action on Climate Change, Scientific American, June 25, 2019.

[132] Victoria Knight, Feeling Anxious About Climate Change? Therapists Say You’re Not Alone, People, July 15, 2019; Susan Clayton, Christie Manning, Kirra Krygsman, and Meighen Speiser, Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance, American Psychological Association, and ecoAmerica, 2017; Dr. Muiris Houston, The negative impact of climate change on our mental health: global warming’s impact ranges from PTSD after extreme weather to general ‘ecoanxiety’, The Irish Times, July 15, 2019; Marcy Cuttler, Exo-anxiety spurs youth to take action on climate change, CBC, September 21, 2019. Also see, Also see, Elizabeth Weise, ‘How could I bring a child into the world?’: More women say climate change means they won’t have kids, USA Today, March 28, 2019; Stephanie Bailey, BirthStrike: The people refusing to have kids, because of ‘the ecological crisis’, CNN, June 26, 2019; Umair Irfan, We need to talk about the ethics of having children in a warming world: questions about procreation in the age of climate change, Vox, March 11, 2019; Sarah Sloat, Climate Change Anxiety: Researcher Shares Tips to Avoid Feeling Overwhelmed, Inverse.com, July 21, 2019; Sarah Kaplan and Emily Guskin, Most American teens are frightened by climate change, poll finds, and about 1 in 4 are taking action, Washington Post, September 16, 2019.

[133] Stephen Leahy, Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns, National Geographic, October 7, 2018.

[134] Fiza Pirani, What is the Paris climate agreement? 9 things you should know, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 8, 2018.

[135] The Paris Agreement, United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int); What is the Paris Agreement?, United Nations Climate Change (unfcc.int); What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?, United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int); Paris Agreement, Sustainable Development Goals, United Nations (sustainabledevelopment.un.org).

[136] Business Is Key Driver of Global Climate Action, United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int), June 28, 2016; Ivana Kottasova, These companies are leading the fight against climate change, CNN Business, October 9, 2018; Cynthia Cummis and Yelena Akopian, Major U.S. Businesses Have Pledged to Act on Climate. Here’s What that Looks Like, World Resources Institute, November 14, 2017; Justin Worland, Microsoft Is the Latest Major U.S. Company to Back a Carbon Tax. Here’s Why, Time, April 18, 2019.

[137] Historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change: 195 Nations Set Path to Keep Temperature Rise Well Below 2 Degrees Celsius, United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC.int), December 13, 2015; Angel Hsu, Amy Weinfurter, Andrew Feierman, Yihao Xie, Zhi Yi Yeo, Katharina Lütkehermöller, Takeshi Kuramochi, Swithin Lui, Niklas Höhne, and Mark Roelfsema, Global Climate Action from Cities, Regions, and Businesses, research report published by Data Driven Yale, NewClimate Institute, and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2018; Scott Andrew and Saeed Ahmed, New York City declares a climate emergency, the first US city with more than a million residents to do so, CNN, June 27, 2019; Maura Forrest, Ottawa joins growing number of Canadian cities to declare a climate emergency. But what does it mean?, National Post, April 25, 2019; Andrew Graham, London city councillors declare climate emergency, Global News, April 23, 2019; James Ellsmoor, Climate Emergency Declarations: How Cities Are Leading the Charge, Forbes, July 20, 2019; Robinson Meyer, 17 Bipartisan Governors Vow to Fight Climate Change – and President Trump, Atlantic, September 13, 2018; Tony Barboza, In climate change battle, it’s Trump vs. California, et al, Los Angeles Times, September 13, 2018; Brad Plumer, Blue States Roll Out Aggressive Climate Strategies. Red States Keep to the Sidelines, New York Times, June 21, 2019; Editorial Board, Where the Climate Change Action Is, New York Times, June 14, 2019.

[138] Climate Change, United Nations (un.org).

[139] The Paris Agreement, United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int); What is the Paris Agreement?, United Nations Climate Change (unfcc.int); What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?, United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int); Paris Agreement, European Commission (ec.europa.eu); Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int); Fiza Pirani, What is the Paris climate agreement? 9 things you should know, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 8, 2018; Paris Agreement, Sustainable Development Goals, United Nations (sustainabledevelopment.un.org); Jacob Waslander, How Much Should Countries Contribute to the Green Climate Fund’s Replenishment?, World Resources Institute, April 3, 2019; Introduction to Climate Finance, United Nations Climate Change (unfcc.int).

[140] The Paris Agreement, United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int); Helen Briggs, What is in the Paris climate agreement?, BBC News, May 31, 2017.

[141] Dana Nuccitelli, There’s one key takeaway from last week’s IPCC report: cut carbon pollution as much as possible, as fast as possible, Guardian, October 15, 2018.

[142] The Paris Agreement, United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int); Fiza Pirani, What is the Paris climate agreement? 9 things you should know, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 8, 2018; Paris Agreement, Sustainable Development Goals, United Nations (sustainabledevelopment.un.org).

[143] Rapid Response Needed to Limit Global Warming: Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C Approved by Governments, Science Daily, October 18, 2018.

[144] The Paris Agreement, United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int); Helen Briggs, What is in the Paris climate agreement?, BBC News, May 31, 2017; Paris Agreement, European Commission (ec.europa.eu); Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int).

[145] Eliza Northrop, Kathleen Mogelgard, and Joe Thwaites, Insider: Designing the Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement: The Catalyst for Climate Action, World Resources Institute, May 1, 2017.

[146] The Paris Agreement, United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int); Helen Briggs, What is in the Paris climate agreement?, BBC News, May 31, 2017; Paris Agreement, European Commission (ec.europa.eu); Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int).

[147] Eliza Northrop, Kathleen Mogelgard, and Joe Thwaites, Insider: Designing the Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement: The Catalyst for Climate Action, World Resources Institute, May 1, 2017.

[148] Paris Agreement, European Commission (ec.europa.eu).

[149] Kimberly Amadeo, Climate Change Facts and Effect on the Economy, The Balance, June 25, 2019; Michael Shear, Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement, New York Times, June 1, 2017; Chris Mooney, Trump can’t actually exit the Paris deal until the day after the 2020 election. That’s a big deal, Washington Post, December 12, 2018; Rebecca Harrington and Skye Gould, The US will join Syria and Nicaragua as the only nations that aren’t part of the Paris Agreement, Business Insider, June 1, 2017.

[150] Eric Hothaus, Trump’s ‘environmental leadership’ is sending us to a climate disaster, Washington Post, July 9, 2019. Also see, Gary Mason, Donald Trump’s all-out assault on the environment, Globe and Mail, July 11, 2019; Nadja Popovich, Livia Albeck-Ripka, and Kendra Pierre-Louis, 84 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump, New York Times, August 29, 2019; Associated Press, Trump admin to roll back rules on climate-changing methane, NBC News, August 29, 2019.

[151] Kimberly Amadeo, Climate Change Facts and Effect on the Economy, The Balance, June 25, 2019; Michael Shear, Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement, New York Times, June 1, 2017; Chris Mooney, Trump can’t actually exit the Paris deal until the day after the 2020 election. That’s a big deal, Washington Post, December 12, 2018; Rebecca Harrington and Skye Gould, The US will join Syria and Nicaragua as the only nations that aren’t part of the Paris Agreement, Business Insider, June 1, 2017. Also see, Robinson Meyer, The Plan to Fix Climate Change in the Senate: Democrats are trying to do their prep work now so they can hit the ground running if they win a majority in 2021, Atlantic, July 12, 2019; David Nather, Climate change is a massive issue for Democrats in 2020, Axios, May 1, 2019; Editorial Board, Now It’s a Climate ‘Emergency’: Democrats are ready to use Trump’s precedent for their own purposes, Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2019.

[152] Andrew Woodcock, World leaders push back on pressure from Trump to water down G20 climate change commitment, Independent, June 29, 2019.

[153] Climate Change, United Nations (un.org); About the IPCC,  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc.ch); What You Need to Know About the New IPCC Climate Report, EarthDay.org, October 8, 2018.

[154] About the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc.ch); What You Need to Know About the New IPCC Climate Report, EarthDay.org, October 8, 2018.

[155] Climate Change, United Nations (un.org).

[156] Neville Nicholls, 40 years ago, scientists predicted climate change. And hey, they were right, Conversation, July 23, 2019.

[157] Jonathan Franzen, What If We Stopped Pretending?, New Yorker, September 8, 2019 (For an interesting discussion of this article, see: Eric Levitz, Jonathan Franzen’s Climate Pessimism Is Justified. His Fatalism Is Not, Intelligencer, September 10, 2019). Also see, Naomi Oreskes, Michael Oppenheimer, and Dale Jamieson, Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change, Scientific American, August 19, 2019.

[158] Rapid Response Needed to Limit Global Warming: Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C Approved by Governments, Science Daily, October 18, 2018; IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press. Also see, Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty  [hereinafter Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C], Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), October 8, 2018.

[159] Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [hereinafter Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C], Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), October 8, 2018.

[160] Climate Change, United Nations (un.org).

[161] IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press. Also see, Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [hereinafter Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C], Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), October 8, 2018.

[162] Dana Nuccitelli, There’s one key takeaway from last week’s IPCC report: cut carbon pollution as much as possible, as fast as possible, Guardian, October 15, 2018.

[163] Dana Nuccitelli, There’s one key takeaway from last week’s IPCC report: cut carbon pollution as much as possible, as fast as possible, Guardian, October 15, 2018.

[164] Rapid Response Needed to Limit Global Warming: Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C Approved by Governments, Science Daily, October 18, 2018.

[165] Climate Change, United Nations (un.org).

[166] Stephen Leahy, Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns, National Geographic, October 7, 2018.

[167] Stephen Leahy, Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns, National Geographic, October 7, 2018.

[168] Dana Nuccitelli, There’s one key takeaway from last week’s IPCC report: cut carbon pollution as much as possible, as fast as possible, Guardian, October 15, 2018.

[169] Stephen Leahy, Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns, National Geographic, October 7, 2018.

[170] Rapid Response Needed to Limit Global Warming: Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C Approved by Governments, Science Daily, October 18, 2018.

[171] See, John Lanchester, Two New Books Dramatically Capture the Climate Change Crisis, New York Times, April 12, 2019.

[172] David Wallace-Wells, Parenting the Climate Change Generation, Intelligencer (nymag.com), December 20, 2018. Also see, Elizabeth Weise, ‘How could I bring a child into the world?’: More women say climate change means they won’t have kids, USA Today, March 28, 2019; Stephanie Bailey, BirthStrike: The people refusing to have kids, because of ‘the ecological crisis’, CNN, June 26, 2019; Umair Irfan, We need to talk about the ethics of having children in a warming world: questions about procreation in the age of climate change, Vox, March 11, 2019.

[173] Jay Inslee, Jay Inslee, Climate Change is a Winning Campaign Issue – and President Trump Knows It, New York Times, July 28, 2019; Stephen Leahy, Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns, National Geographic, October 7, 2018.

[174] Larry Elliott, Climate Change will make the next global crash the worst, Guardian, October 11, 2018. For example see, Erik Kirschbaum, Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely on renewable energy, Los Angeles Times, January 26, 2019; Michael Bernstein, Is carbon tax the answer to Canada’s climate-change woes?, MacLean’s, September 23, 2019.

[175] Stephen Leahy, Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns, National Geographic, October 7, 2018.

[176] Tess Riley, Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says, The Guardian, July 10, 2017. Also see, Lucinda Shen, These 100 Companies Are Responsible for Most of the World’s Carbon Emissions, Fortune, July 10, 2017; Sam Meredith, Just 100 firms attributable for 71% of global emissions, report says, CNBC, July 10, 2017; Dr. Paul Griffin, The Carbon Majors Database: CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017, CDP Worldwide, July 2017; Abba Mikulska, Investor pressure is driving climate action at fossil fuel companies, Axios, July 31, 2019.

[177] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Anrold (AL) Gore Jr: The Nobel Peace Prize for 2007, United Nations (un.org); Climate Change, United Nations (un.org).

[178] Dana Nuccitelli, There’s one key takeaway from last week’s IPCC report: cut carbon pollution as much as possible, as fast as possible, Guardian, October 15, 2018.

[179] Jake Johnson, ‘I’m Not Willing to Do That’: Trump Says He Won’t Take Climate Action Because It Would Threaten Corporate Profits, Common Dreams, June 29, 2019. Also see, Jakob Hanke and David Herszenhorn, Trump pressures other G20 leaders to weaken climate goals, Politico, June 28, 2019; Peter Stubley, Trump dismisses need for climate change action: ‘We have the cleanest water we’ve ever had, we have the cleanest air’, Independent, June 29, 2019.

[180] About USGCRP, U.S. Global Change Research Program (GlobalChange.gov).

[181] Fourth National Climate Assessment: Vol. 2 Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States (November 2018), U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018.

[182] About USGCRP, U.S. Global Change Research Program (GlobalChange.gov); Agencies, U.S. Global Change Research Program (GlobalChange.gov).

[183] About USGCRP, U.S. Global Change Research Program (GlobalChange.gov); Agencies, U.S. Global Change Research Program (GlobalChange.gov).

[184] Fourth National Climate Assessment: Vol. 2 Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States (November 2018), U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018.

[185] Anne Barnard, A ‘Climate Emergency’ Was Declared in New York City. Will That Change Anything?, New York Times, July 5, 2019.

[186] Fourth National Climate Assessment: Vol. 2 Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States (November 2018), U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018.

[187] Editorial Board, Global warming led to scorching heat in Europe. Leaders must take it seriously, Washington Post, July 5, 2019.

[188] Coral Davenport and Kendra Pierre-Louis, U.S. Climate Report Warns of Damaged Environment and Shrinking Economy, New York Times, November 23, 2018.

[189] Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney, Major Trump administration climate report says damage is ‘intensifying across the country’, Washington Post, November 23, 2018.

[190] New Federal Climate Assessment for U.S. Released: Report highlights impacts, risks and adaptations to climate change, Science Daily, November 2018. Also see, Fourth National Climate Assessment: Vol. 2 Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States (November 2018), U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018.

[191] Rachael Gutman, The Three Most Chilling Conclusions From the Climate Report, Atlantic, November 26, 2018.

[192] Matt McGrath, Climate change: Impacts ‘accelerating’ as leaders gather for UN talks, BBN News, September 22, 2019.

[193] Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney, Major Trump administration climate report says damage is ‘intensifying across the country’, Washington Post, November 23, 2018.

[194] Tom Miles, Countries failing on climate face ‘Green political muscle’: OECD, Business Insider, July 3, 2019. Also see, Jessica Kellner, Climate Change and Big Money in Politics, American Promise.net, April 17, 2019; Fatima Syed, Ontario needs to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, report says, National Observer, July 30, 2019.

[195] David Roberts, Why the right’s usual smears don’t work on Greta Thunberg: She keeps the focus on science, and they hate it, Vox, September 26, 2019.

[196] Timmons Roberts, One year since Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, Brookings, June 1, 2018; Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, How GOP Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science, New York Times, June 3, 2017; Suzanne Goldenberg, Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks, Guardian, February 14, 2013; Jane Mayer, ‘Kochland’ Examines the Koch Brothers’ Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial, New Yorker, August 13, 2019; Christopher Leonard, Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America, Simon & Schuster, 2019; Christopher Leonard, David Koch Was the Ultimate Climate Change Denier – How a playboy billionaire built a political army to defend his fossil fuel empire, New York Times, August 23, 2019; Michael Hiltzik, David Koch’s real legacy is the dark money network of rich right-wingers, Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2019; Michael Hiltzik, How MIT whitewashed the climate change denialism of a major donor, David Koch, Los Angeles Times, August 26, 2019; The Kochtopus’s garden – Plutocracy is a feature of American democracy, not a bug, The Economist, August 29, 2019.  Also see, Chris Mooney, Trump can’t actually exit the Paris deal until the day after the 2020 election. That’s a big deal, Washington Post, December 12, 2020; Sharon Lerner, Waste Only: How the Plastics industry is Fighting to Keep Polluting the World, The Intercept, July 20, 2019; Jessica Corbett, While Global Temps Soared, Study Shows US Media Coverage of Right-Wing Think Tanks’ Climate Lies Actually Rose Over the Past 5 Years, Common Dreams, July 25, 2019; Think Tanks That Deny Climate Science Get More Coverage Now Than Five Years Ago, Public Citizen, July 24, 2019; Dino Grandoni, The Energy 202: Want to address climate change? Fix campaign finance first, 2020 Democrats say, Washington Post, June 20, 2019; Jessica Kellner, Climate Change and Big Money in Politics, American Promise.net, April 17, 2019; Marianne Lavelle, Fossil Fuel Money to GOP Grows, and So Does Climate Divide, Inside Climate News.org, September 15, 2016; Diane Toomey, How Big Money in Politics Blocked U.S. Action on Climate Change, Yale Environment 360 (e360.yale.edu), May 10, 2017; Suzanne Goldenberg, Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change, Guardian, December 20, 2013; Alexander Kaufman, Fossil Fuel Industries Outspend Clean Energy Advocates on Climate Lobbying By 10 To 1, Huffington Post, July 18, 2018; Jason Samenow and Andrew Freedman, AccuWeather misleads on global warming and heat waves, a throwback to its past climate denial, Washington Post, August 9, 2019; Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, Bloomsbury Press, 2010; Ann Carlson, Why Big Oil fears being put on trial for climate change, Los Angeles Times, August 12, 2019; Katie Jennings, Dino Grandoni and Susanne Rust, How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research, Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2015; Amy Lieberman and Susanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, Los Angeles Times, December 31, 2015; Coral Davenport and Mark Landler, Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science, New York Times, May 27, 2019; Georgi Kantchev, Wildfires and Floods push Russia to Revise its Stance on Climate Change – previously skeptical, government now aims to cap emissions, but opposition in energy sector remains strong, Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2019; Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Inside Climate News – Series of articles: Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song, and David Hasemyer, Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago, Inside Climate News, September 16, 2015; Lisa Song, Neela Banerjee, and David Hasemyer, Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Model’s – company chairman would later mock climate models as unreliable while he campaigned to stop global action to reduce fossil fuel emissions, Inside Climate News, September 22, 2015; Davie Hasemyer and John Cushman Jr, Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty, Inside Climate News, October 22, 2015; Neela Danerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate News, December 1, 2015; Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate Change, December 22, 2015.

[197] Geoff Dembicki, Even with Trump in Office, the Climate Denial Movement is Quietly Falling Apart, Vice, August 13, 2019. Also see, Nadja Popovich, Livia Albeck-Ripka, and Kendra Pierre-Louis, 84 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump, New York Times, August 29, 2019; Associated Press, Trump admin to roll back rules on climate-changing methane, NBC News, August 29, 2019.

[198] David Dodwell, Donald Trump’s war on climate science, Brexit and Hong Kong’s housing disaster are what happens when governments disregard evidence, South China Morning Post, August 12, 2019. Also see, Ian Dunlop and David Spratt, Australia’s climate stance is inflicting criminal damage on humanity, Guardian, August 2, 2019; Adam Morton, Fossil fuel exports make Australia one of the worst contributors to climate crisis, Guardian, July 7, 2019; Kate Lyons, Jacinda Ardern says Australia has to ‘answer to Pacific’ on climate change, Guardian, August 14, 2019; Adam Morton, David Attenborough says it’s ‘extraordinary’ climate deniers are in power in Australia, Guardian, July 10, 2019; Megan Darby, Brazil: Bolsonaro threatens to quit Paris climate deal, Climate Home News, August 14, 2018; Josh Gabbatis, Brazil’s far-right leader Jair Bolsonaro threatens to strip powers from government environmental agencies, Independent, December 2, 2018; Amazon deforestation increases by 278% in a year, institute warns climate skeptic president Bolsonaro, The Telegraph, August 7, 2019; Jonathan Watts, Brazil’s new foreign minister believes climate change is a Marxist plot, Guardian, November 15, 2019; Lisa Viscidi, Brazil Was a Global Leader on Climate Change. Now It’s a Threat, Foreign Policy, January 4, 2019.

[199] Jonathan Franzen, What If We Stopped Pretending?, New Yorker, September 8, 2019. For an interesting discussion of this article, see: Eric Levitz, Jonathan Franzen’s Climate Pessimism Is Justified. His Fatalism Is Not, Intelligencer, September 10, 2019.

[200] Sandra Laville, Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report, Guardian, March 22, 2019. Also see, Shell’s boss delivers some hard truths on oil and climate change, The Economist, July 6, 2019.

[201] Amanda Schupak, Disturbing Report Shows how Many Environmental Activists Are Killed Each Week – NGO Global Witness reveals that around the world, people are murdered and attacked for defending the Earth. Even is America, activists are being silenced, Huffington Post, July 29, 2019; Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, How GOP Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science, New York Times, June 3, 2017; Jonathan Watts, Philippines is deadliest country for defenders of environment, Guardian, July 30, 2019; Dr. Rod Schoonover, The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security, New York Times, July 30, 2019; Kenney accused of ‘trying to demonize’ environmental groups while ignoring foreign-owned business influence, CBC, May 8, 2019; Gilian Steward, Kenney pledges to go to war with environmentalists, Toronto Star, October 30, 2018; Ishaan Tharoor, The world’s climate emergency is getting harder to ignore, Washington Post, July 30, 2019; Maria Caffrey, I’m a scientist. Under Trump I lost my job for refusing to hide climate crisis facts, Guardian, July 25, 2019; Dale Marshall, Here’s why politicians secretly meeting with oil lobbyists should make us worry, EnvironmentalDefence.ca, Mary 28, 2019; Diane Toomey, How Big Money in Politics Blocked U.S. Action on Climate Change, Yale Environment 360, May 10, 2017; Sheldon Whitehouse and Jared Huffman, The Green New Deal vote shows Republicans would rather mock climate change than challenge big lobbying groups, NBC News, March 26, 2019. Also see generally: Jill Mahoney and Karen Howlett, Ontario’s influencers: How the heads of lobbying firms have become part of Doug Ford’s inner circle, Globe and Mail, July 22, 2019; Robert Benzie, Premier Doug Ford’s ties to lobbyists has Tory riding association ‘alarmed’, Toronto Star, August 19, 2019; Jonathan Mahler, How One Conservative Think Tank Is Stocking Trump’s Government: by placing its people throughout the administration, the Heritage Foundation has succeeded in furthering its right-wing agenda, New York Times, June 20, 2018; Juliet O’Neill, The campaign to silence Tzeporah Berman, National Observer, August 6, 2019; Claire Parker, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg is sailing to America amid a storm of online attacks, Washington Post, August 15, 2019; Susan Ormiston, ‘She’s a phenomenon’: Climate activist Greta Thunberg sailing into stiff winds in U.S., CBC, August 17, 2019; David Cohen, Trump mocks teen climate activist, Politico, September 24, 2019.

[202] For example, see: Terry Reith, Scientists sound alarm over Alberta’s new approach to tracking oilsands pollution, CBC, September 18, 2019; Ian Dunlop and David Spratt, Australia’s climate stance is inflicting criminal damage on humanity: government opts for conflict rather than change, while suppressing details on the implications of its climate inaction, Guardian, August 2, 2019.

[203] Annie Sneed, The Risk of Conflict Rises as the World Heats Up: ignoring the connections between climate and security poses risks for the U.S., Scientific American, July 22, 2019. Also see, Nadja Popovich, Livia Albeck-Ripka, and Kendra Pierre-Louis, 84 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump, New York Times, August 29, 2019; Associated Press, Trump admin to roll back rules on climate-changing methane, NBC News, August 29, 2019.

[204] Alex Lenferna, Vast subsidies keeping the fossil fuel industry afloat should be put to better use, The Conversation, July 15, 2019. Also see, Damian Carrington, Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash ‘could pay for green transition’, Guardian, August 1, 2019; David Roberts, Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat for more than we thought: most energy subsidies go not to renewables but to producing more of the dirty stuff, Vox, July 26, 2018; David Roberts, Ohio just passed the worst energy bill of the 21st century: a corrupt bailout for dinosaur power plants that screws renewable energy in the process, Vox, July 27 2019; Jessica Kellner, Climate Change and Big Money in Politics, American Promise.net, April 17, 2019; Fatima Syed, Ontario needs to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, report says, National Observer, July 30, 2019.

[205] Kelly Crowe, How ‘organized climate change denial’ shapes public opinion on global warming, CBC, September 27, 2019.

[206] Meinhard Doelle, Decades of Climate Policy Failure in Canada: Can We Break the Vicious Cycle?, Dalhousie University blogs (Environmental Law News), August 8, 2018.

[207] Rohitesh Dhawan and Sean West, The CEO as Chief Geopolitical Officer, KPMG.com, 2018. Also see, 10 biggest corporations make more money than most countries in the world combined, Global Justice Now, September 12, 2016; Zlata Rodionova, World’s largest corporations make more money than most countries on Earth combined, Independent, September 13, 2016; John Myers, How do the world’s biggest companies compare to the biggest economies?, World Economic Forum (weforum.org), October 16, 2016.

[208] Kate Wheeling, Democrats and Republicans Support Clean and Renewable Energy, A New Survey Finds, Pacific Standard, February 27, 2019; Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Mailbach, etal, Energy in the American Mind: December 2018, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University and George Mason University, 2018.

[209] Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2014; Jeffrey Lax, Justin Phillips, and Adam Zelizer, The Party of the Purse? Unequal Representation in the US Senate, American Political Science Review, 2019.  Also see, Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy, BBC.com, April 17, 2014; Jessica Kellner, Climate Change and Big Money in Politics, American Promise.net, April 17, 2019; Is Congress rigged in favour of the rich?: A new study finds that partisanship matters more than the influence of the wealthy, The Economist, July 22, 2019.

[210] Diane Toomey, How Big Money in Politics Blocked U.S. Action on Climate Change, Yale Environment 360 (e360.yale.edu), May 10, 2017; Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, How GOP Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science, New York Times, June 3, 2017. Also see, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Melanie Wachtell Stinnett, Captured: The Corporate Infiltration of American Democracy, New Press, 2017. Also see, Jane Mayer, ‘Kochland’ Examines the Koch Brothers’ Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial, New Yorker, August 13, 2019; Christopher Leonard, Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America, Simon & Schuster, 2019; Christopher Leonard, David Koch Was the Ultimate Climate Change Denier – How a playboy billionaire built a political army to defend his fossil fuel empire, New York Times, August 23, 2019; Michael Hiltzik, David Koch’s real legacy is the dark money network of rich right-wingers, Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2019; Michael Hiltzik, How MIT whitewashed the climate change denialism of a major donor, David Koch, Los Angeles Times, August 26, 2019;  The Kochtopus’s garden – Plutocracy is a feature of American democracy, not a bug, The Economist, August 29, 2019.

[211] Sheldon Whitehouse and Jared Huffman, The Green New Deal vote shows Republicans would rather mock climate change than challenge big lobbying groups, NBC News, March 26, 2019.

[212] See for example, Matt McGrath, ‘Triple whammy’ threatens UN action on climate change, BBC News, June 26, 2019; Thomson Reuters, Rich will save themselves in ‘climate apartheid’ while poor suffer, UN report says, CBC, June 25, 2019; Gary Mason, The Conservative climate plan is a sad joke, Globe and Mail, June 25, 2019; Diane Toomey, How Big Money in Politics Blocked U.S. Action on Climate Change, Yale Environment 360 (e360.yale.edu), May 10, 2017; Suzanne Goldenberg, Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change, Guardian, December 20, 2013; Alexander Kaufman, Fossil Fuel Industries Outspend Clean Energy Advocates on Climate Lobbying By 10 To 1, Huffington Post, July 18, 2018; Marianne Lavelle, Fossil Fuel Money to GOP Grows, and So Does Climate Divide, Inside Climate News.org, September 15, 2016; Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, How GOP Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science, New York Times, June 3, 2017.

[213] Alexander Petersen, Emmanuel Vincent, and Anthony Westerling, Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians, Nature Communications, Vol. 10, Art. 3502, 2019; Emma Bloomfield and Denise Tillery, The Circulation of Climate Change Denial Online: Rhetorical and Networking Strategies on Facebook, Environmental Communication, Volume 13, Issue 1, 2019; Hannah Osborne, Climate Change Deniers Who Don’t Know What They’re Talking About, Study Finds, Newsweek, August 15, 2019; Marlow Hood, Climate Deniers get more media play than scientists: study, Phys.org, August 14, 2019; Damian Carrington, BBC admits ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’, Guardian, September 7, 2018; Laura Hensley, Majority of Canadians believe in climate change – here’s why some still don’t, Global News, August 19, 2019; Jonathan Watts, ‘No doubt left’ about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts, Guardian, July 24, 2019.

[214] Nsikan Akpan, How your brain stops you from taking climate change seriously, PBS.org, January 7, 2019; Matthew Wilburn King, How brain biases prevent climate action, BBC, March 8, 2019; Kate Yoder, Why your brain doesn’t register the words ‘climate change’, Grist.org, April 29, 2019; Bryan Walsh, Why Your Brain Can’t Process Climate Change, Time, August 14, 2019; George Marshall, Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014; David Victor, Nick Obradovich, and Dillon Amaya, Why the wiring of our brains makes it hard to stop climate change, Brookings, September 18, 2017.

[215] The Kochtopus’s garden – Plutocracy is a feature of American democracy, not a bug, The Economist, August 29, 2019.

[216] Timmons Roberts, One year since Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, Brookings, June 1, 2018. Also see, Chris Mooney, Trump can’t actually exit the Paris deal until the day after the 2020 election. That’s a big deal, Washington Post, December 12, 2020.

[217] Geoff Dembicki, Even with Trump in Office, the Climate Denial Movement is Quietly Falling Apart, Vice, August 13, 2019; Lee Moran, Greta Thunberg Explains Why She Won’t ‘Waste Time’ Talking to Donald Trump, Huffington Post, August 14, 2019; Dylan Matthews, Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times. Here’s all of it, Vox, June 1, 2017; Frank Jordans, Climate change a top issue for European Parliament voters, National Post, May 24, 2019; Matthew Taylor, Two-thirds of Britons agree planet is in a climate emergency, Guardian, April 30, 2019; Paul Hockenos, All new polls show: Ever more Europeans want climate action, Energy Transition.org, May 20, 2019; Jedidajah Otte, Environment of greater concern than housing or terrorism: UK poll, Guardian, July 21, 2019; Kate Ryan, Climate change climbs up U.S. voters’ list of concerns, Reuters, May 16, 2019; Robinson Meyer, The Unprecedented Surge in Fear About Climate Change, The Atlantic, January 23, 2019; Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Mailbach, etal, Politics & Global Warming, March 2018, Yale University and George Mason University, 2018; Lisa Friedman, Climate Could Be an Electoral Time Bomb, Republican Strategists Fear, New York Times, August 2, 2019; Benjamin Fearnow, Two-Thirds of Young Republicans Fear for Environment Amid Large Surge in GOP Climate Change Concern: Poll, Newsweek, August 29, 2019; Ariel Edwards-Levy, Every Group Except Older Republicans Is Concerned About Climate Change – Most Americans want the U.S. to take a global leadership role on climate change, but only about a quarter think the country is doing so, Huffington Post, September 23, 2019; Ryan Maloney, Climate Change is a Top 3 Issue in Canada’s 2019 Election, Abacus Data Poll Suggests, Huffington Post, July 15, 2019; John Geddes, Extreme Weather may finally make climate change a ballot-box issue, Maclean’s, June 11, 2019; ‘Silent majority’ of Canadians wants more government action on climate change, CBC, February 1, 2019; Laura Hensley, Majority of Canadians believe in climate change – here’s why some still don’t, Global News, August 19, 2019; Samantha Beattie, Voters in Almost Every Riding are Worried about Climate Change, Data Suggests – A new map breaks down what Canadians believe should be done about climate change, Huffington Post, September 7, 2019; Sarah Kaplan and Emily Guskin, Most American teens are frightened by climate change, poll finds, and about 1 in 4 are taking action, Washington Post, September 16, 2019; Lydia Saad, Americans as Concerned as Ever About Global Warming, Gallup, March 25, 2019; Moira Fagan and Christine Huang, A look at how people around the world view climate change, Pew Research, April 18, 2019.

[218] Moira Fagan and Christine Huang, A look at how people around the world view climate change, Pew Research, April 18, 2019; Jacob Poushter and Christine Huang, Climate Change Still Seen as the Top Global Threat, but Cyberattacks a Rising Concern, Pew Research Center (pewresearch.org), February 10, 2019.

[219] Alexander Kaufman, Voters Back Liability for Companies that Mislead about Climate Change: Poll, Huffington Post, August 23, 2019.

[220] Jonathan Watts, ‘Biggest compliment yet’: Greta Thunberg welcomes oil chief’s ‘greatest threat’ label, Guardian, July 5, 2019.

[221] Treat climate change like the crisis it is, says journalism professor: Sean Holman gives the Canadian media a failing grade for their coverage of the climate crisis, CBC Radio, July 5, 2019.

[222] Christina Nunez, Global Warming solutions, explained, National Geographic, January 24, 2019.

[223] Christina Nunez, Global Warming solutions, explained, National Geographic, January 24, 2019.

[224] Alex Ballingall, Federal NDP needs to ‘think about working people’, Alberta leaders says, Toronto Star, June 20, 2019.

[225] Bjorn Lomborg, Voters don’t want the green campaigners’ extreme climate policies, The Telegraph, July 19, 2019; Eric Grenier, Canadians are worried about climate change, but many don’t want to pay taxes to fight it: Poll, CBC, June 18, 2019; Damien Cave, It Was Supposed to Be Australia’s Climate Change Election. What Happened?, New York Times, May 19, 2019; Valerie Volcovici, Americans demand climate action (as long as it doesn’t cost much): Reuters poll, Reuters, June 26, 2019; Catherine Rampell, If even France can’t figure out a climate policy, what hope is there for the U.S.?, Washington Post, June 20, 2019; Steven Mufson and James McAuley, France’s protestors are part of a global backlash against climate-change taxes, Washington Post, December 4, 2018; Editorial, Enough with the climate change half-measures. Canada has real solutions to consider, Maclean’s, July 11, 2019.

[226] Alex Ballingall, Federal NDP needs to ‘think about working people’, Alberta leaders says, Toronto Star, June 20, 2019; Amy Harder, 1 big thing: Top Obama official to call for ‘Green Real Deal’, Axios, July 31, 2019.

[227] Gareth Redmond-King, It’s not enough to think about climate solutions – we must also know how to deliver them, LinkedIn, August 5, 2019; Peter McCartney, Why Canada keeps missing its climate targets, Edmonton Journal, August 7, 2019; Greg Muttitt, Anna Markova and Matthew Crighton, Sea Change: climate emergency, jobs and managing the phase-out of UK oil and gas extraction, Oil Change International, May 2019; Jens Burchardt, Philipp Gerbert, Stefan Schönberger, Patrick Herhold, and Christophe Brognaux, The Economic Case for Combating Climate Change, BCG, September 27, 2018; Climate-Smart Development: Adding up the benefits of actions that help build prosperity, end poverty and combat climate change, The World Bank and ClimateWorks Foundation, 2014; Helen Mountford, Amar Bhattacharya, Lord Nicholas Stern, etal, Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st  Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent Times, New Climate Economy, The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, newclimateeconomy.report, 2018; Michael Gerrard and John Dernbach (editors), Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States: Summary & Key Recommendations, Environmental Law Institute, 2018; Adele Peters, Fighting climate change could boost the global economy by $26 trillion, Fast Company, September 5, 2018; Catherine Bosley, Fighting Climate Change Will Help Economic Growth, Study Finds, Bloomberg, August 19, 2019; Matthew Kahn, Kamiar Mohaddes, Ryan Ng, etal, Long-Term Macroeconomic Effects of Climate Change: A Cross-Country Analysis, NBER Working Paper No. 26167, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2019. Also see, Nicolas Stern, The Economics of Climate Change: the Stern Review, Cambridge University Press, January 2007; Michael Howard, Climate change action is good for the economy – and Britain is the proof, Guardian, April 9, 2017; Bob Keefe, Why climate change is going to clobber our economy, GreenBiz, January 10, 2019; Neil Irwin, Climate Change’s Giant Impact on the Economy: 4 Key Issues, New York Times, January 17, 2019; Benefits of Climate Change Policies, OECD (oecd.org); Jon Creyts, Anton Derkach, Scott Nyquist, etal, Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?, McKinsey & Company, 2007; Joel Jaeger, Tackling Climate Change and Promoting Development: A ‘Win-Win’, Our World (ourworld.unu.edu), September 18, 2014; Economic Facts Support United States Action to Curb Global Warming, Union of Concerned Scientists (ucsusa.org); Michael Webber, How Oil-Loving, Frack-Happy Texas Could Lead the Low-Carbon Future: And get rich doing it, Texas Monthly, September 2019; Max Fawcett, The conversation Calgary needs to have: How does an oil city adjust to a new reality?, CBC News, September 12, 2019; Climate capitalists have serious money in climate-friendly investments, The Economist, September 21, 2019; Lauren Silva Laughlin, Green Investments Are in the Black, Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2019.

[228] Ivana Kottasova, Greta Thunberg is inspiring climate action. But in some countries her message is falling on deaf ears, CNN, July 7, 2019.

[229] Catherine Rampell, If even France can’t figure out a climate policy, what hope is there for the U.S.?, Washington Post, June 20, 2019.

[230] Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Strategy and Geopolitical Risk in a G-Zero World: Inequality, Polarized Democracies, and the shifting economic and political landscape, Sigurdson Post, May 31, 2018; William Galston, The rise of European populism and the collapse of the center-left, Brookings, March 8, 2018.

[231] Rich Lesser, Martin Reeves, and Johann Harnoss, Saving Globalization and Technology from Themselves, BCG.com, July 26, 2016; William Galston, The rise of European populism and the collapse of the center-left, Brookings, March 8, 2018; Eric Sigurdson, Leadership Reimagined: the ‘CEO Statesman’ and ‘Lawyer Statesman’ in a Time of Political, Economic and Social Fragmentation – statespersonship is good for business, good for institutions, and good for a divided and disaffected society, Sigurdson Post, May 31, 2019; Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Strategy and Geopolitical Risk in a G-Zero World: Inequality, Polarized Democracies, and the shifting economic and political landscape, Sigurdson Post, May 31, 2018.

[232] Ishaan Tharoor, The world’s climate emergency is getting harder to ignore, Washington Post, July 30, 2019.

[233] Gillian Steward, Kenney pledges to go to war with environmentalists, Toronto Star, October 30, 2018. Also see, Samantha Beattie, Alberta Premier Singled Out Environmentalist. Death Threats Followed, Huffington Post, June 12, 2019; Sean Craig, Postmedia Wants to Join Jason Kenney’s War Against Environmental Activists, CanadaLandShow.com, May 17, 2019; Kieran Leavitt, Amnesty International raises concerns about Jason Kenney’s strategy to fight anti-oil forces, Toronto Star, September 10, 2019; Michelle Bellefontaine, Amnesty International says Jason Kenney’s ‘fight back’ strategy violates human rights, CBC, September 10, 2019.

[234] Lisa Kimmel, Canada’s unprecedented trust gap: Who will build the bridge for a country divided?, Globe and Mail, February 14, 2019.

[235] John Hall, The No. 1 Priority For Business Leaders in 2018, Forbes, February 11, 2018.

[236] Catherine Rampell, If even France can’t figure out a climate policy, what hope is there for the U.S.?, Washington Post, June 20, 2019.

[237] The environment and the economy – can we have it all?, CBC, March 14, 2016; Jay Inslee, Climate Change is a Winning Campaign Issue – and President Trump Knows It, New York Times, July 28, 2019. Also see, Jens Burchardt, Philipp Gerbert, Stefan Schönberger, Patrick Herhold, and Christophe Brognaux, The Economic Case for Combating Climate Change, BCG, September 27, 2018; Helen Mountford, Amar Bhattacharya, Lord Nicholas Stern, etal, Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st  Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent Times, New Climate Economy, The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, newclimateeconomy.report, 2018; Michael Gerrard and John Dernbach (editors), Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States: Summary & Key Recommendations, Environmental Law Institute, 2018; Adele Peters, Fighting climate change could boost the global economy by $26 trillion, Fast Company, September 5, 2018; Catherine Bosley, Fighting Climate Change Will Help Economic Growth, Study Finds, Bloomberg, August 19, 2019; Matthew Kahn, Kamiar Mohaddes, Ryan Ng, etal, Long-Term Macroeconomic Effects of Climate Change: A Cross-Country Analysis, NBER Working Paper No. 26167, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2019; Joel Jaeger, Tackling Climate Change and Promoting Development: A ‘Win-Win’, Our World (ourworld.unu.edu), September 18, 2014; Michael Webber, How Oil-Loving, Frack-Happy Texas Could Lead the Low-Carbon Future: And get rich doing it, Texas Monthly, September 2019; Max Fawcett, The conversation Calgary needs to have: How does an oil city adjust to a new reality?, CBC News, September 12, 2019; Climate capitalists have serious money in climate-friendly investments, The Economist, September 21, 2019; Lauren Silva Laughlin, Green Investments Are in the Black, Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2019.

[238] Emily Chung, Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficial than we think, CBC, July 10, 2019; Carolyn Kormann, The False Choice between Economic Growth and Combatting Climate Change, New Yorker, February 4, 2019; Larry Elliott, Climate change will make the next global crash the worst, Guardian, October 11, 2018; Max Fawcett, The conversation Calgary needs to have: How does an oil city adjust to a new reality?, CBC News, September 12, 2019.

[239] Devin Thorpe, This May Be the Single Biggest Business Opportunity in Human History, Forbes, August 7, 2019.

[240] Mimi Shaftoe, System Change not Climate Change, Alternatives Journal, June 24, 2019.

[241] Carolyn Kormann, The False Choice between Economic Growth and Combatting Climate Change, New Yorker, February 4, 2019.

[242] Colin Bradford and Ramesh Thakur, Climate Change and Global Leadership, Brookings, February 10, 2007.

[243] Rebecca Byrnes, Why it is important to work with conservative governments like Australia’s on climate change, London School of Economics and Political Science: Grantham Research Institute on Climate change and the Environment, May 28, 2019.

[244] Climate-Smart Development: Adding up the benefits of actions that help build prosperity, end poverty and combat climate change, The World Bank and ClimateWorks Foundation, 2014. Also see, Jens Burchardt, Philipp Gerbert, Stefan Schönberger, Patrick Herhold, and Christophe Brognaux, The Economic Case for Combating Climate Change, BCG, September 27, 2018; Helen Mountford, Amar Bhattacharya, Lord Nicholas Stern, etal, Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st  Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent Times, New Climate Economy, The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, newclimateeconomy.report, 2018; Michael Gerrard and John Dernbach (editors), Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States: Summary & Key Recommendations, Environmental Law Institute, 2018; Adele Peters, Fighting climate change could boost the global economy by $26 trillion, Fast Company, September 5, 2018; Catherine Bosley, Fighting Climate Change Will Help Economic Growth, Study Finds, Bloomberg, August 19, 2019; Matthew Kahn, Kamiar Mohaddes, Ryan Ng, etal, Long-Term Macroeconomic Effects of Climate Change: A Cross-Country Analysis, NBER Working Paper No. 26167, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2019; Gareth Redmond-King, It’s not enough to think about climate solutions – we must also know how to deliver them, LinkedIn, August 5, 2019; Greg Muttitt, Anna Markova and Matthew Crighton, Sea Change: climate emergency, jobs and managing the phase-out of UK oil and gas extraction, Oil Change International, May 2019; Nicolas Stern, The Economics of Climate Change: the Stern Review, Cambridge University Press, January 2007; Michael Howard, Climate change action is good for the economy – and Britain is the proof, Guardian, April 9, 2017; Bob Keefe, Why climate change is going to clobber our economy, GreenBiz, January 10, 2019; Neil Irwin, Climate Change’s Giant Impact on the Economy: 4 Key Issues, New York Times, January 17, 2019; Benefits of Climate Change Policies, OECD (oecd.org); Jon Creyts, Anton Derkach, Scott Nyquist, etal, Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?, McKinsey & Company, 2007; Joel Jaeger, Tackling Climate Change and Promoting Development: A ‘Win-Win’, Our World (ourworld.unu.edu), September 18, 2014; Economic Facts Support United States Action to Curb Global Warming, Union of Concerned Scientists (ucsusa.org); Michael Webber, How Oil-Loving, Frack-Happy Texas Could Lead the Low-Carbon Future: And get rich doing it, Texas Monthly, September 2019; Max Fawcett, The conversation Calgary needs to have: How does an oil city adjust to a new reality?, CBC News, September 12, 2019; Climate capitalists have serious money in climate-friendly investments, The Economist, September 21, 2019; Lauren Silva Laughlin, Green Investments Are in the Black, Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2019.

[245] Matthew Taylor, Jonathan Watts, and John Bartlett, Climate crisis: 6 million people join latest wave of global protests, Guardian, September 27, 2019; Sandra Laville and Jonathan Watts, Across the globe, millions join biggest climate protest ever, Guardian, September 21, 2019; Eliza Barclay and Brian Resnick, How big was the global climate strike? 4 million people, activists estimate, Vox, September 22, 2019; Thomson Reuters, Millions in 150 countries protest for climate action, CBC, September 20, 2019.

[246] Kelly Crowe, How ‘organized climate change denial’ shapes public opinion on global warming, CBC, September 27, 2019.

[247] Geoff Dembicki, Even with Trump in Office, the Climate Denial Movement is Quietly Falling Apart, Vice, August 13, 2019; Lee Moran, Greta Thunberg Explains Why She Won’t ‘Waste Time’ Talking to Donald Trump, Huffington Post, August 14, 2019; Dylan Matthews, Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times. Here’s all of it, Vox, June 1, 2017; Frank Jordans, Climate change a top issue for European Parliament voters, National Post, May 24, 2019; Matthew Taylor, Two-thirds of Britons agree planet is in a climate emergency, Guardian, April 30, 2019; Paul Hockenos, All new polls show: Ever more Europeans want climate action, Energy Transition.org, May 20, 2019; Jedidajah Otte, Environment of greater concern than housing or terrorism: UK poll, Guardian, July 21, 2019; Kate Ryan, Climate change climbs up U.S. voters’ list of concerns, Reuters, May 16, 2019; Robinson Meyer, The Unprecedented Surge in Fear About Climate Change, The Atlantic, January 23, 2019; Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Mailbach, etal, Politics & Global Warming, March 2018, Yale University and George Mason University, 2018; Lisa Friedman, Climate Could Be an Electoral Time Bomb, Republican Strategists Fear, New York Times, August 2, 2019; Benjamin Fearnow, Two-Thirds of Young Republicans Fear for Environment Amid Large Surge in GOP Climate Change Concern: Poll, Newsweek, August 29, 2019; Ariel Edwards-Levy, Every Group Except Older Republicans Is Concerned About Climate Change – Most Americans want the U.S. to take a global leadership role on climate change, but only about a quarter think the country is doing so, Huffington Post, September 23, 2019; Ryan Maloney, Climate Change is a Top 3 Issue in Canada’s 2019 Election, Abacus Data Poll Suggests, Huffington Post, July 15, 2019; John Geddes, Extreme Weather may finally make climate change a ballot-box issue, Maclean’s, June 11, 2019; ‘Silent majority’ of Canadians wants more government action on climate change, CBC, February 1, 2019; Laura Hensley, Majority of Canadians believe in climate change – here’s why some still don’t, Global News, August 19, 2019; Samantha Beattie, Voters in Almost Every Riding are Worried about Climate Change, Data Suggests – A new map breaks down what Canadians believe should be done about climate change, Huffington Post, September 7, 2019; Sarah Kaplan and Emily Guskin, Most American teens are frightened by climate change, poll finds, and about 1 in 4 are taking action, Washington Post, September 16, 2019; Lydia Saad, Americans as Concerned as Ever About Global Warming, Gallup, March 25, 2019; Moira Fagan and Christine Huang, A look at how people around the world view climate change, Pew Research, April 18, 2019.

[248] Moira Fagan and Christine Huang, A look at how people around the world view climate change, Pew Research, April 18, 2019; Jacob Poushter and Christine Huang, Climate Change Still Seen as the Top Global Threat, but Cyberattacks a Rising Concern, Pew Research Center (pewresearch.org), February 10, 2019.

[249] Thomas Hale, Jessica Green, and Jeff Colgan, The climate is changing. Here’s how politics will also change, Washington Post, October 8, 2018.

[250] Christo Aivalis, Canada’s ‘Green New Deal’ could change the game ahead of the elections, Washington Post, July 29, 2019; Valerie Volcovici, Harris, Ocasio-Cortez float plan to lift low-income communities in climate plans, Business Insider, July 29, 2019.

[251] Jens Burchardt, Philipp Gerbert, Stefan Schönberger, Patrick Herhold, and Christophe Brognaux, The Economic Case for Combating Climate Change, BCG, September 27, 2018. Also see, Paul Hawken (editor), Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin Books, 2017; Helen Mountford, Amar Bhattacharya, Lord Nicholas Stern, etal, Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st  Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent Times, New Climate Economy, The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, newclimateeconomy.report, 2018; Michael Gerrard and John Dernbach (editors), Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States: Summary & Key Recommendations, Environmental Law Institute, 2018; Catherine Bosley, Fighting Climate Change Will Help Economic Growth, Study Finds, Bloomberg, August 19, 2019; Matthew Kahn, Kamiar Mohaddes, Ryan Ng, etal, Long-Term Macroeconomic Effects of Climate Change: A Cross-Country Analysis, NBER Working Paper No. 26167, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2019; Adele Peters, Fighting climate change could boost the global economy by $26 trillion, Fast Company, September 5, 2018; Michael Webber, How Oil-Loving, Frack-Happy Texas Could Lead the Low-Carbon Future: And get rich doing it, Texas Monthly, September 2019;  Max Fawcett, The conversation Calgary needs to have: How does an oil city adjust to a new reality?, CBC News, September 12, 2019; Climate capitalists have serious money in climate-friendly investments, The Economist, September 21, 2019; Lauren Silva Laughlin, Green Investments Are in the Black, Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2019.

[252] UN Climate Action Summit 2019, United Nations (un.org).

[253] Stewart Patrick, Paris is Just One Piece of the Climate Change Puzzle, Council on Foreign Relations, November 23, 2015.

[254] Amy Harder, Why climate change is so hard to tackle: The global problem, Axios, August 19, 2019.

[255] Zak Smith, The Climate Crisis, Biodiversity, and Food Security Puzzle, NRDC.org, August 8, 2019; Land is Part of the Climate Solution – IPCC, UNFCC.int, August 8, 2019; Amy Harder, The energy and climate change puzzle, Axios, August 12, 2019; Stewart Patrick, Paris is Just One Piece of the Climate Change Puzzle, Council on Foreign Relations, November 23, 2015; Dominque Bachelet, Mike Gough, Tim Sheehan, etal, Climate Consoles: Pieces in the puzzle of climate change adaptation, Climate Services, Vol. 8 December 2017; Riccardo Valentini, Climate Change on the Menu, Project Syndicate, November 30, 2018.

[256] Heather Scoffield, Carbon-price decision marks the beginning of a national response to climate change, Toronto Star, June 28, 2019. Also see, Mark Rice-Oxley, First climate assembly in UK draws up wishlist for council action, Guardian, July 20, 2019.

[257] Paul Hawken (editor), Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin Books, 2017.

[258] Steve Denning, The Vital Next Step in Fighting Climate Change, Forbes, July 28, 2019; Adele Peters, The 100 Things We Need to Do to Reverse Global Warming, Fast Company, March 13, 2017. Also see, Paul Hawken (editor), Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin Books, 2017; Laura Paddison, Experts Say There Are 36 Ways to Halve Global Emissions by 2030, Huffington Post, September 19, 2019; Michael Gerrard and John Dernbach (editors), Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States: Summary & Key Recommendations, Environmental Law Institute, 2018; Abe Streep, 100 Ways to Save the World, Outside, March 13, 2017; Steve Denning, The Vital Next Step in Fighting Climate Change, Forbes, July 28, 2019.

[259] Christina Nunez, Global Warming solutions, explained, National Geographic, January 24, 2019; What Would an Effective Solution to Climate Change look Like?, Forbes, January 7, 2019; Laura Paddison, Experts Say There Are 36 Ways to Halve Global Emissions by 2030, Huffington Post, September 19, 2019; Johan Falk and Owen Gaffney (lead authors), Exponential Roadmap: Scaling 36 Solutions to Halve Emissions by 2030, Future Earth, September 2019; Paul Hawken (editor), Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin Books, 2017; Julia Brown and Djeneba Sako, Cities 100: 100 solutions for climate action in cities, Sustainia/C40 Cities/Realdania, 2016; Anna Walsh (editor) and Post Opinions Staff, How we can combat climate change: The world has until 2030 to drastically cut our emissions. Where do we begin?, Washington Post, January 2, 2019; Michael Gerrard and John Dernbach (editors), Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States: Summary & Key Recommendations, Environmental Law Institute, 2018.

[260] What Would an Effective Solution to Climate Change look Like?, Forbes, January 7, 2019; Chelsea Harvey, Cement Producers Are Developing a Plan to Reduce CO2 Emissions, Scientific American, July 9, 2019; Lucy Rodgers, Climate Change: the massive CO2 emitter you may not know about, BBC, December 17, 2018; Jeffrey Rissman, Concrete change: Making cement carbon-negative, GreenBiz.com, December 6, 2018; Emily Chung, 5 ways to make air travel greener, CBC, August 13, 2019; 7 types of renewable energy to support commercial sustainability, Sun Power (businessfeed.sunpower.com), July 16, 2019; Lora Shinn, Renewable Energy: The Clean Facts, NRDC.org, June 15, 2018; Henry Sanderson, Coal Industry stakes survival on carbon capture plan – Is the technology more of a marketing stunt or part of the solution to global warming, Financial Times, August 20, 2019.

[261] Christina Nunez, Global Warming solutions, explained, National Geographic, January 24, 2019; Megan Ogilvie, What We Can Do Now: undeniable, Canada’s changing climate, Toronto Star, July 12, 2019.

[262] Laura Paddison, Experts Say There Are 36 Ways to Halve Global Emissions by 2030, Huffington Post, September 19, 2019; Johan Falk and Owen Gaffney (lead authors), Exponential Roadmap: Scaling 36 Solutions to Halve Emissions by 2030, Future Earth, September 2019.

[263] Nicole Mortillaro, What is a carbon tax, and will it make a difference?, CBC, October 23, 2018; Editorial, The real carbon tax is the money provinces are spending on lawyers, Globe and Mail, July 2, 2019. But see, Scott Tinker, Carbon Pricing Is Not a Fix for Climate Change – the problem: developing countries can’t afford to go along, Scientific American, August 16, 2019; Brad Plumer and Nadja Popovich, These Countries Have Prices on Carbon. Are They Working?, New York Times, April 2, 2019; Michael Bernstein, Is carbon tax the answer to Canada’s climate-change woes?, MacLean’s, September 23, 2019.

[264] Steve Denning, Implementing the One Viable Solution to Climate Change, Forbes, July 21, 2019.

[265] Christina Nunez, Global Warming solutions, explained, National Geographic, January 24, 2019; Emily Chung, Carbon capture: What you need to know about catching CO2 to fight climate change, CBC, September 2, 2019. Also see, Paul Hawken (editor), Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin Books, 2017; What Would an Effective Solution to Climate Change look Like?, Forbes, January 7, 2019; Henry Sanderson, Coal Industry stakes survival on carbon capture plan – Is the technology more of a marketing stunt or part of the solution to global warming, Financial Times, August 20, 2019; Tony Seskus, Why engineers in Alberta think they’ve found a way for the oilsands to produce clean fuel, CBC, September 29, 2019; Michael Webber, How Oil-Loving, Frack-Happy Texas Could Lead the Low-Carbon Future: And get rich doing it, Texas Monthly, September 2019.

[266] Johan Falk and Owen Gaffney (lead authors), Exponential Roadmap: Scaling 36 Solutions to Halve Emissions by 2030, Future Earth, September 2019; Laura Paddison, Experts Say There Are 36 Ways to Halve Global Emissions by 2030, Huffington Post, September 19, 2019.

[267] Jessica Stillman, 10 Startups Working to Fix Climate Change with Technology, Inc., July 22, 2019. Also see, James Temple, Startups looking to suck CO2 from the air are suddenly luring big bucks, MIT Technology Review, May 2, 2019; David Roberts, Pulling CO2 out the air and using it could be a trillion-dollar business, Vox, September 4, 2019; Emily Chung, Carbon capture: What you need to know about catching CO2 to fight climate change, CBC, September 2, 2019; Richard Littlemore, Can this B.C. company be part of the climate change solution? Bill Gates and others are betting yes, Globe and Mail, September 26, 2019. Also see, What if geoengineering goes rogue?, The Economist, July 6, 2019; Daisy Dunne, Halving global warming with solar geoengineering could ‘offset tropical storm risk’, Carbon Brief, March 11, 2019; Scott Johnson, The Side Effects of Solar Geoengineering Could be Minimal, Wired, March 15, 2019; Emily Holden, Radical Plan to artificially cool Earth’s climate could be safe, study finds, Guardian, March 11, 2019; James Conca, Why Solar Geoengineering May Be Our Only Hope to Reverse Global Warming, Forbes, September 10, 2019.

[268] Christina Nunez, Global Warming solutions, explained, National Geographic, January 24, 2019.

[269] Paul Hawken (editor), Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin Books, 2017; What Would an Effective Solution to Climate Change look Like?, Forbes, January 7, 2019; Jean-Francois Bastin,Yelena Finegold, laude Garcia, Danilo Mollicone, Marcelo Rezende, Devin Routh, Constantin M. Zohner, and Thomas W. Crowther, The global tree restoration potential, Science, Vol. 365, Issue 6448, July 2019; Mark Maslin and Simon Lewis, Reforesting an area the size of the US needed to help avert climate breakdown, say researchers – are they right?, The Conversation, July 4, 2019; Associated Press, Best way to fight climate change? Plant a trillion trees, CBC, July 5, 2019; Stephanie Demarco, Trees can reduce carbon in the atmosphere to levels not seen in nearly 100 years, Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2019; Ryan Flanagan, Why planting one trillion trees won’t solve climate change, CTV News, July 8, 2019.

[270] Tim Searchinger, Richard Waite, Craig Hanson, and Janet Dumas, Creating A Sustainable Food Future: A menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050 (Final Report, July 2019), World Resources Report / World Bank / United Nations Development Programme / UNEP, July 2019. Also see, Stephen Leahy, How to feed the world without destroying the planet, National Geographic, July 17, 2019; Ann Hui, Climate change threatening stability of global food supply, UN report warns, Globe and Mail, August 8, 2019; Christopher Flavelle, Climate Change Threatens the World’s Food Supply, United Nations Warns, New York Times, August 8, 2019; Riccardo Valentini, Climate Change on the Menu, Project Syndicate, November 30, 2018; Chad Frischmann, The climate impact of the food in the back of your fridge, Washington Post, July 31, 2018; Nicole Mortillaro, How eliminating food waste can help the fight against climate change, CBC, August 10, 2019; Timothy Wise, Big Ag Is Sabotaging Progress on Climate Change, Wired, August 28, 2019.

[271] Alex Lenferna, Vast subsidies keeping the fossil fuel industry afloat should be put to better use, The Conversation, July 15, 2019; Damian Carrington, Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash ‘could pay for green transition’, Guardian, August 1, 2019; Umair Irfan, Fossil fuels are underpriced by a whopping $5.2 trillion, Vox, May 17, 2019.

Also see, David Roberts, Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat for more than we thought: most energy subsidies go not to renewables but to producing more of the dirty stuff, Vox, July 26, 2018; Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications, International Monetary Fund, January 28, 2013; David Roberts, Ohio just passed the worst energy bill of the 21st century: a corrupt bailout for dinosaur power plants that screws renewable energy in the process, Vox, July 27 2019; Jessica Kellner, Climate Change and Big Money in Politics, American Promise.net, April 17, 2019; Fatima Syed, Ontario needs to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, report says, National Observer, July 30, 2019.

[272] Damian Carrington, Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash ‘could pay for green transition’, Guardian, August 1, 2019; Reforming Subsidies Could Pay for a Clean Energy Revolution: Report, International Institute for Sustainable Development (iisd.org), June 18, 2019; Richard Bridle, Shruti Sharma, Mostafa, and Anne Geddes, Fossil Fuel to Clean Energy Subsidy Swaps: How to pay for an energy revolution, International Institute for Sustainable Development, June 2019.

[273] Zeke Turner and Sarah Kent, How Companies are Pushing Ahead on Climate-Change Targets: more global firms pledge to cut carbon emissions to cut costs, draw investment and get ahead of new laws, Wall Street Journal, November 16, 2017; Kimberly Amadeo, Climate Change Facts and Effect on the Economy, The Balance, May 23, 2019. Also see, Andrew Hill, The limits of the pursuit of profit, Financial Times, September 22, 2019; Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim, Corporate Sustainability: A Strategy?, Harvard Business School & Management Unit Working Paper No. 19-065, January 1, 2019; Tensie Whelan and Carly Fink, The Comprehensive Business Case for Sustainability, Harvard Business Review, October 21, 2016; Matt Power, Sustaining a Triple Bottom Line: companies that integrate economics with environmental and social concerns also tend to outperform their less-savvy competitors, GreenBuilderMedia.com, August 10, 2017; Business this week, The Economist, September 9, 1999.

[274] Christina Nunez, Global Warming solutions, explained, National Geographic, January 24, 2019.

[275] Kimberly Amadeo, Climate Change Facts and Effect on the Economy, The Balance, May 23, 2019; Espen Stoknes, Feeling helpless about climate change? There’s lots you can do, CBC, June 21, 2019; Kimberley Amadeo, Deforestation Facts, Causes, Effects, and What You Can Do, The Balance, June 25, 2019; Carbon emissions per person, by country, The Guardian; Each Country’s Share of CO2 Emissions, Union of Concerned Scientists (ucsusa.org); Henry Bewicke, Chart of the day: These countries have the largest carbon footprints, World Economic Forum (weforum.org), January 2, 2019; Robert Kunzig, Carnivore’s Dilemma, National Geographic, November 2014; Tess Riley, Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says, Guardian, July 10, 2017; Lucinda Shen, These 100 Companies Are Responsible for Most of the World’s Carbon Emissions, Fortune, July 10, 2017; Sam Meredith, Just 100 firms attributable for 71% of global emissions, report says, CNBC, July 10, 2017; Frank Jordans, Investment report finds many companies wanting on climate, Business Insider, July 10, 2019; Megan Ogilvie, What We Can Do Now: undeniable, Canada’s changing climate, Toronto Star, July 12, 2019; Kimberly Nicholas and Seth Wynes, Flying Less is Critical to a Safe Climate Future, Public Administration Review, July 16, 2019; Emily Chung, 5 ways to make air travel greener, CBC, August 13, 2019; Laura Paddison, Experts Say There Are 36 Ways to Halve Global Emissions by 2030, Huffington Post, September 19, 2019; Emily Farra, 150 Brands Have Joined Emmanuel Macron’s ‘Fashion Pact’ to Make the Fashion Industry More Sustainable, Vogue, August 26, 2019.

[276] Max Boykoff, How to Talk Effectively about Climate Change: our conversation have been stuck, but a new book lays out a number of ways to get them flowing productively, Scientific American, July 22, 2019. Also see, Maxwell Boykoff, Creative (Climate) Communications: Productive Pathways for Science, Policy and Society, Cambridge University Press, 2019.

[277] Rebecca Gao, Why People Worldwide Will be Walking Off the Job Later this Month – The Global Climate Strike hopes to draw attention to the worsening climate crisis, Chatelaine, September 11, 2019. Also see, Jordan Valinsky, Nearly 1,000 Amazon employees plan a walkout to protest climate change, CNN, September 9, 2019; Jessica Glenza, Alan Evans, etal, Climate strikes held around the world – as it happened, Guardian, March 15, 2019; Chris D’Angelo, Greta Thunberg Takes Climate Strike to Trump’s White House, Huffington Post, September 13, 2019; Nives Dolsak and Aseem Prakash, Climate Strikes: What They Accomplish and How They Could Have More Impact, Forbes, September 14, 2019; Sarah Kaplan and Emily Guskin, Most American teens are frightened by climate change, poll finds, and about 1 in 4 are taking action, Washington Post, September 16, 2019; Rebecca Falconer, NYC says 1.1M students can skip school for climate strike protest, Axios, September 17, 2019; Laura Paddison, Experts Say There Are 36 Ways to Halve Global Emissions by 2030, Huffington Post, September 19, 2019; Sinead Baker and Rosie Perper, Photos show huge climate change protests around the world, which have spread across continents as hundreds of thousands strike to demand action on climate change, Business Insider, September 20, 2019; Kenyon Wallace and Megan Ogilvie, Millions expected to protest for climate action Friday. Here’s why that may be a ‘watershed moment’ in the climate movement, Toronto Star, September 19, 2019; Matthew Taylor, Jonathan Watts, John Bartlett, Climate crisis: 6 million people join latest wave of global protests, Guardian, September 27, 2019; Sandra Laville and Jonathan Watts, Across the globe, millions join biggest climate protest ever, Guardian, September 21, 2019; Eliza Barclay and Brian Resnick, How big was the global climate strike? 4 million people, activists estimate, Vox, September 22, 2019; Thomson Reuters, Millions in 150 countries protest for climate action, CBC, September 20, 2019.

[278] Julia Rosen, Want to do something about global warming? Talk about it with your family and friends, Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2019; Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, Seth Rosenthal, John Kotcher, Parrish Bergquist, Matthew Ballew, Matthew Goldberg, and Abel Gustafson, Climate change in the American mind: April 2019, Yale University and George Mason University, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, June 27, 2019; Megan Ogilvie, What We Can Do Now: undeniable, Canada’s changing climate, Toronto Star, July 12, 2019.

[279] Joana Setzer and Rebecca Byrnes, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2019 snapshot, Policy Report, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2019; Rebecca Leber, How a Revolution in Climate Science is Putting Big Oil Back on Trial, Mother Jones, September 16, 2019; Lisa Benjamin, Directors are in the crosshairs of corporate climate litigation, Conversation, July 8, 2019; Lisa Benjamin, The next wave of corporate lawsuits – climate change claims, Global News, July 14, 2019; Jack Guy, Climate change lawsuits spreading around the world, says report, CNN, July 4, 2019; Ann Carlson, Why Big Oil fears being put on trial for climate change, Los Angeles Times, August 12, 2019; Jane Gerster, Why a landmark opioid damage award is good news to climate change advocates, Global News, September 7, 2019. Also see: Katie Jennings, Dino Grandoni and Susanne Rust, How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research, Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2015; Amy Lieberman and Susanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, Los Angeles Times, December 31, 2015; Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Inside Climate News – Series of articles: Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song, and David Hasemyer, Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago, Inside Climate News, September 16, 2015; Lisa Song, Neela Banerjee, and David Hasemyer, Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Model’s – company chairman would later mock climate models as unreliable while he campaigned to stop global action to reduce fossil fuel emissions, Inside Climate News, September 22, 2015; Davie Hasemyer and John Cushman Jr, Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty, Inside Climate News, October 22, 2015; Neela Danerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate News, December 1, 2015; Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate Change, December 22, 2015. Also see, Larissa Parker, Make a healthy climate a legal right that extends to future generations, Economist, September 17, 2019.

[279] David Dodwell, Donald Trump’s war on climate science, Brexit and Hong Kong’s housing disaster are what happens when governments disregard evidence, South China Morning Post, August 12, 2019.

[280] Stephen Wood, Climate-accountability motions lay an important foundation, Globe and Mail, July 26, 2019; Dan Fumano, To sue or not to sue? A question for cities facing climate change, Vancouver Sun, June 26, 2019.

[281] Joshua Keating, Europe’s Response to the Amazon Fires Shows How to Get Tough on Climate Change Outlaws, Slate, August 23, 2019; David Wallace-Wells, The Glimmer of a Climate New World Order, Intelligencer, August 26, 2019; Justin Worland, How Trump Unwittingly Paved the Way for a Climate Change Breakthrough at the G-7, Time, August 26, 2019; Justin Worland, Europe May Use Trump’s Favorite Economic Weapon to Punish His Inaction on Climate Change, Time, May 3, 2019; Norimitsu Onishi, As the Amazon burns, Europe seizes title of climate champion, New York Times, August 25, 2019.

[282] Johan Falk and Owen Gaffney (lead authors), Exponential Roadmap: Scaling 36 Solutions to Halve Emissions by 2030, Future Earth, September 2019.

[283] Ann Carlson, Why Big Oil fears being put on trial for climate change, Los Angeles Times, August 12, 2019. Also see: Katie Jennings, Dino Grandoni and Susanne Rust, How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research, Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2015; Amy Lieberman and Susanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, Los Angeles Times, December 31, 2015; Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Inside Climate News – Series of articles: Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song, and David Hasemyer, Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago, Inside Climate News, September 16, 2015; Lisa Song, Neela Banerjee, and David Hasemyer, Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Model’s – company chairman would later mock climate models as unreliable while he campaigned to stop global action to reduce fossil fuel emissions, Inside Climate News, September 22, 2015; Davie Hasemyer and John Cushman Jr, Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty, Inside Climate News, October 22, 2015; Neela Danerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate News, December 1, 2015; Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate Change, December 22, 2015; Geoff Dembicki, Even with Trump in Office, the Climate Denial Movement is Quietly Falling Apart, Vice, August 13, 2019.

[284] Developmental Change: The most frequent and least disruptive is a developmental change, which may be planned or emergent. This type of change is generally incremental, and either enhances or corrects existing aspects of an organization, often focusing on the improvement of a skill or process. This process occurs in organizations all the time and may go unnoticed by the majority of people. It is experienced as business optimization, changes to improve efficiency, responding to varying customer preferences, and corrections to problems uncovered by regular business operations. Developmental change can be thought of in terms of people doing their daily job functions while seeking opportunities for incremental improvement.  Additionally, it arises from organized efforts that seek improvements in existing processes or products as a response to changing market dynamics, customer preferences, or business conditions. Developmental change occurs when organizations continually scan their internal and external environments to create work settings that encourage and reward innovation, growth, and development. Leaders, or mangers with strong skillsets, may lead the implementation of such change initiatives.

[285] Transitional Change: Transitional change may be significant and disruptive to the organization, involving modification to an organization’s current state (department, division, or organization) in respect to people, structure, procedures or technology. This type of change seeks to achieve a known desired state that is different from the existing one. It is episodic and planned. For example, mergers, acquisitions, and the introduction of entirely different business processes will impact teams in very meaningful ways that disrupt current methods being used. This may be the goal of the transitional change as an organization seeks new opportunities or addresses fundamental challenges in the market. In response, productivity and effectiveness will improve or fall because of these types of changes. Transitional change does not occur as often as developmental changes, but it happens frequently enough that strategic and operational leadership (including managers) must be competent and capable of leading the organization through the process.  This is not the level of change that managers on their own will have success in bringing through their organization.  These are significant shifts in the organization, and a degree of resistance and obstacles should be expected.

[286] Transformational Change: The last form of change is transformational and does not occur frequently. Transformational change represents a fundamental shift from current paradigms or questions underlying assumptions and mindsets. It requires a shift in assumptions made by the organization’s leadership and personnel. Transformation can result in an organization that differs significantly in terms of structure, processes, culture and strategy. New or different markets, products, and services are potentially combined with a different mission, vision, values, and probably leadership to produce the transformational event.  Strong strategic and operational leadership and change management is needed to plan, implement, and guide the organization, personnel, and corporate culture through this level of strategy implementation and change. It may result in the creation of an organization that operates in developmental mode – one that continuously learns, adapts and improves.

[287] Zak Smith, The Climate Crisis, Biodiversity, and Food Security Puzzle, NRDC.org, August 8, 2019.

[288] Eric Sigurdson, An Integrated Approach to Strategy Implementation and Change Management – From the Legal Industry to Financial Services to Health Care: ‘a fundamental leadership and management skillset’, Sigurdson Post, August 31, 2018. Also see, Eric Sigurdson, Strategic Management and Leadership – From the Legal Industry to Financial Services to Healthcare: ‘what got you here won’t get you there’, Sigurdson Post, July 30, 2018; Eric Sigurdson, The Science of Leadership: the Legal Industry and an Integrated Approach to Modern Organizational Leadership, Sigurdson Post, February 28, 2019.

[289] Michael Bloomberg, Our Next Moonshot: Saving Earth’s Climate – the Beyond Carbon initiative sets ambitious goals for switching to clean energy, and for building the political coalition necessary to do so, Bloomberg, June 7, 2019.

[290] Ben Soltoff, More than a Moonshot: Why Solving Climate Change is Harder than Putting a Man on the Moon, Yale Center for Business and the Environment, July 23, 2019.

[291] John Feffer, Lifeboat Earth: Is China or the Green New Deal the answer to climate change?, Salon, August 1, 2019; Michael Bloomberg, Our Next Moonshot: Saving Earth’s Climate – the Beyond Carbon initiative sets ambitious goals for switching to clean energy, and for building the political coalition necessary to do so, Bloomberg, June 7, 2019;

[292] Michael Bloomberg, Our Next Moonshot: Saving Earth’s Climate – the Beyond Carbon initiative sets ambitious goals for switching to clean energy, and for building the political coalition necessary to do so, Bloomberg, June 7, 2019; Mark Hertsgaard, Can the rest of the world save itself from climate breakdown without the US?, Guardian, September 16, 2019.

[293] See generally, Amar Bhattacharya, Will the G-20 provide the urgent leadership needed on climate change?, Brookings, June 14, 2019; Joana Oliveira, Who will Lead the Fight against Climate Change, Open Mind (bbvaopenmind.com), 2018; Tiffany Weatherholtz, Separating Controversy and Climate Change: How the United States Could Lead Climate Change and Energy Reform with the Growth of Renewable Energy Sources Globally, Emory International Law Review, Vol. 32, 2018; Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Germany must lead efforts to revive international climate action, Climate Change News, May 13, 2019; Climate CEOs Managing $1.5 trillion Call for Action, United Nations Climate Change (unfccc.int), November 29, 2018; Patricia Espinosa, Climate Action Should be a Global Priority for World Leaders, IPSNews.net, December 2018; An open letter from business to world leaders: ‘Be ambitious, and together we can address climate change’, World Economic Forum (weforum.org), November 29, 2018; Damian Carrington, Leaders move past Trump to protect world from climate change, Guardian, October 16, 2018; Asia-Pacific Climate Leaders Pledge to Accelerate Climate Action, The Climate Group, June 4, 2019; Paul Bledsoe, Takeaway from Poland: Climate Success requires action by global leaders – including US president, The Hill, December 17, 2018; California leads subnational efforts to curb climate change, The Economist, September 15, 2018; Carolyn Beeler, California emerges as a leader at climate summit, PRI.org, September 14, 2018.

[294] Roy Culpeper, Tackling climate change in Canada requires global action, Broadbent Institute, April 18, 2019.

[295] Amar Bhattacharya, Will the G-20 provide the urgent leadership needed on climate change?, Brookings, June 14, 2019; Roy Culpeper, Tackling climate change in Canada requires global action, Broadbent Institute, April 18, 2019; Paul Bledsoe, Takeaway from Poland: Climate Success requires action by global leaders – including US president, The Hill, December 17, 2018; Norimitsu Onishi, As the Amazon burns, Europe seizes title of climate champion, New York Times, August 25, 2019.

[296] Emma Thompson, Everything depends on what we do now, CNN, September 3, 2019.

[297] Lisa Friedman, As U.S. Sheds Role as Climate Change Leader, Who Will Fill the Void?, New York Times, November 12, 2017. Also see, Margaret Klein Salamon, The climate emergency is a kick-start to create a better world, The Hill, August 28, 2019.

[298] Amar Bhattacharya, Will the G-20 provide the urgent leadership needed on climate change?, Brookings, June 14, 2019; Roy Culpeper, Tackling climate change in Canada requires global action, Broadbent Institute, April 18, 2019; Paul Bledsoe, Takeaway from Poland: Climate Success requires action by global leaders – including US president, The Hill, December 17, 2018; Norimitsu Onishi, As the Amazon burns, Europe seizes title of climate champion, New York Times, August 25, 2019; Mary Wales, Three Cities Leading the Way for Climate Change, Natures Path, January 15, 2019; Stephanie Hogan, How Tokyo, Oslo and other world cities are leading the way on climate action, CBC, June 14, 2019; Kyra Appleby, Global cities are stepping up on climate action, CDP.net, October 19, 2018; Matt McGrath, Cities lead the way on curbing carbon emissions, BBC, September 14, 2018; Erik Kirschbaum, Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely on renewable energy, Los Angeles Times, January 26, 2019.

[299] Who We Are, GreenClimate.fund. Also see, Tyrone Hall, Why Canada should lead global climate action, The Conversation, August 21, 2019.

[300] Nick Paton Walsh, The world wonders what’s happened to America, CNN, August 10, 2019; Ariel Edwards-Levy, Every Group Except Older Republicans Is Concerned About Climate Change – Most Americans want the U.S. to take a global leadership role on climate change, but only about a quarter think the country is doing so, Huffington Post, September 23, 2019 (“Sixty-one percent of Americans say the U.S. should take a global leadership role in trying to prevent climate change”).

[301] Luiza Savage, The U.S. left a hole in leadership on climate. China is filling it, Politico, August 15, 2019; Christina Zhou, China remains the world’s worst polluter but did you know it’s also a leader in renewable energy?, ABC News (abc.net.au), June 30, 2019. Also see, Zhenhua Lu, With US out of Paris climate deal, China’s now able to lead … but is it willing?, South China Morning Post, June 2, 2017;  Coco Liu, The real reason for China’s U-turn on climate change, South China Morning Post, February 4, 2017; Robbie Gramer, China Rises in U.N. Climate Talks, While U.S. Goes AWOL, Foreign Policy, May 7, 2019; Rob Harris, China’s Pacific climate pitch angers Australia, US, Sydney Morning Herald, August 16, 2019. Also see, Tyrone Hall, Why Canada should lead global climate action, The Conversation, August 21, 2019.

[302] Paul Bledsoe, Takeaway from Poland: Climate Success requires action by global leaders – including US president, The Hill, December 17, 2018.

[303] See generally, Elaine Burke, Mary Robinson: ‘Climate change is the moonshot of this generation’, Silicon Republic, December 2, 2018; Michael Bloomberg, Our Next Moonshot: Saving Earth’s Climate – the Beyond Carbon initiative sets ambitious goals for switching to clean energy, and for building the political coalition necessary to do so, Bloomberg, June 7, 2019; Kirsten Gillibrand, My plan to tackle climate change: saving our planet should be this generation’s moonshot, Medium.com, July 25, 2019; Letters to the Editor, We need a moonshot, not despair, on global warming, Washington Post, October 19,. 2018; John Feffer, Lifeboat Earth: Is China or the Green New Deal the answer to climate change?, Salon, August 1, 2019; Ben Soltoff, More than a Moonshot: Why Solving Climate Change is Harder than Putting a Man on the Moon, Yale Center for Business and the Environment, July 23, 2019; Steve Denning, Implementing the One Viable Solution to Climate Change, Forbes, July 21, 2019; Tony Fontes, If we can put man on the moon, we can fix climate change, Courier Mail, July 22, 2019; John Schwartz, We Went to the Moon. Why Can’t We Solve Climate Change?, New York Times, July 19, 2019; Austin Cannon, ‘Climate Change Moonshot’: Kirsten Gillibrand echoes JFK in plan for combating climate change, USA Today, July 25, 2019; Steve Denning, The Vital Next Step In Fighting Climate Change, Forbes, July 28, 2019.

[304] Steve Denning, Implementing the One Viable Solution to Climate Change, Forbes, July 21, 2019; Peter Bregman and Antonio Nieto-Rodriquez, 6 Questions to Ask Before Launching a Moon Shot Project, Harvard Business Review, August 8, 2019.. Also see, Tony Fontes, If we can put man on the moon, we can fix climate change, Courier Mail, July 22, 2019; John Schwartz, We Went to the Moon. Why Can’t We Solve Climate Change?, New York Times, July 19, 2019; Austin Cannon, ‘Climate Change Moonshot’: Kirsten Gillibrand echoes JFK in plan for combating climate change, USA Today, July 25, 2019; Steve Denning, The Vital Next Step In Fighting Climate Change, Forbes, July 28, 2019; Anna Walsh (editor) and Post Opinions Staff, How we can combat climate change: The world has until 2030 to drastically cut our emissions. Where do we begin?, Washington Post, January 2, 2019.

[305] What You Need to Know About the New IPCC Climate Report, EarthDay.org, October 8, 2018. Also see, Emily Beament, Voting age should be lowered to 16 to avert climate breakdown, think tank says, Independent, September 17, 2019.

[306] Noah Millman, 4 inconvenient truths about climate change, The Week, September 7, 2019.

[307] Noah Millman, 4 inconvenient truths about climate change, The Week, September 7, 2019.

[308] Stephen Badger, The future of the environment rests on today’s leaders, and we need to be doing much more – starting now, Business Insider, September 20, 2019.

[309] Stephen Badger, The future of the environment rests on today’s leaders, and we need to be doing much more – starting now, Business Insider, September 20, 2019.

[310] Business and the Fourth Wave of Environmentalism: Findings from Environmental Defense Fund’s 2018 Fourth Wave Adoption Benchmark Survey, Environmental Defense Fund, 2018.

[311] Tensie Whelan and Carly Fink, The Comprehensive Business Case for Sustainability, Harvard Business Review, October 21, 2016.

[312] Lauren Oakes, Playing Offense and Defense on Climate at the Same Time – We need to focus on responses to climate change that both reduce emissions and help people cope with an altered environment, Scientific American, August 26, 2019.

[313] James O’Brien, How to be Right: In a world gone wrong, Ebury, 2018.