Imagine a pizza maker working with a ball of dough. She might use a spatula to lift the dough onto a cutting board then use a rolling pin to flatten it into a circle. Easy, right? Not if this pizza maker is a robot.Imagine a pizza maker working with a ball of dough. She might use a spatula to lift the dough onto a cutting board then use a rolling pin to flatten it into a circle. Easy, right? Not if this pizza maker is a robot.
Over the past few decades, technological advances have opened new and exciting possibilities for both remote tourism and the teleoperation of robotic systems. This allowed computer scientists to develop increasingly sophisticated systems that allow humans to virtually visit remote locations in immersive ways.Over the past few decades, technological advances have opened new and exciting possibilities for both remote tourism and the teleoperation of robotic systems. This allowed computer scientists to develop increasingly sophisticated systems that allow humans to virtually visit remote locations in immersive ways.
Energy Innovation partners with the independent nonprofit Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI) to provide climate and energy research updates. The research synopsis below comes from AGCI Program Director Emily Jack-Scott and a full list of AGCI’s updates covering recent climate change and clean energy pathways research is available online at https://www.agci.org/solutions/quarterly-research-reviews
To say that the European energy system is at a crossroads is an understatement. Countries across Europe are already deep into a generational shift away from fossil fuels and toward greater efficiency, electrification, and integration of renewables. Against this backdrop, Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine is now dramatically altering Europe’s energy equation with some European governments pledging to accelerate their shift to renewables in a bid to break from reliance on Russian oil and natural gas.
As European nations operationalize their commitments to the Paris Agreement, policymakers from across the EU and the UK are promoting the creation of more renewable energy communities (RECs). RECs are renewable energy projects sited near groups of local shareholders or owners where individual households benefit from “prosumership,” consuming affordable renewable energy they produce in exchange for direct investments in infrastructure and governance. Collectively, RECs hold promise for scaling up decentralized renewable energy production across Europe. REC proponents cite additional benefits, including harnessing the power of individual households, improving buy-in for renewable energy, building new skills among REC members, and democratizing the energy transition. In light of events in Ukraine, there may be an even greater premium placed on such infrastructure.
Workers carry a solar panel to be installed on the roof of Balcombe primary school, as part of a community owned renewable energy project. Source: Simuove, Wikimedia Commons. 19 February 2016.
European policymakers also view renewable energy communities as central to their efforts to ensure a just energy transition. In theory, RECs have the potential to empower communities and benefit energy-vulnerable and energy-poor households. This intention is made explicit in the European Commission’s latest renewable energy directive (RED II), which outlines how renewable energy communities should be accessible to all, including low-income and vulnerable households.
But how does this play out in practice? A series of recent research and review articles caution against the broad-stroke assumption that RECs automatically produce greater energy justice and alleviate energy poverty. The authors argue that unless critically acknowledged and addressed, RECs could actually exacerbate socioeconomic divides and further disadvantage vulnerable communities. But local and national policies can address potential pitfalls and ensure that RECs can indeed be a mechanism for energy justice in the transition.
Over the last couple decades, the theory of energy justice continues to mature in peer-reviewed literature. As outlined in a past AGCI research review, energy justice frameworks can be useful in examining energy policies and projects through the lens of distributive, procedural, and recognitional justice. Analyzing their 2021 survey of dozens of RECs across Europe, Hanke and colleagues found significant injustices across all three dimensions of energy justice.
Despite close proximity to renewable energy installations, the majority of RECs lacked diverse representation. Rather, membership skewed significantly toward those with the time, education, and financial resources required to establish RECs: retired men with expertise in engineering or other technical training. In a 2020 article, Hanke & Lowitzsch outlined related behavioral economics that exacerbate this trend –namely, that low-income individuals are burdened with worries, decisions, and time constraints that compromise their bandwidth to consider energy alternatives. Consequently, they often opt to stick with a known option, even when the alternative may be cost-beneficial.
In addition, Hanke et al. (2021) found that REC shareholders regularly lacked awareness or understanding of local energy poverty and vulnerability needs, or engaged with marginalized groups (a recognition injustice). Without such knowledge, most RECs did not implement procedures to address energy poverty, broaden engagement with marginalized groups, or establish financial resources to address these shortcomings (procedural injustice). As a result, the majority of European RECs sampled did not provide benefits (such as lower energy prices or greater energy efficiency services) to local vulnerable populations (distributional injustice).
Van Bommel and Höffken went one step further in their 2021 review article to examine how distributional, procedural, and recognitional energy justice lenses play out within, between, and beyond energy communities. Within RECs, they found a similar skewing of membership toward men from high socioeconomic groups, with associated inequitable distribution of benefits. This can translate into tensions between renewable energy community members who reap the financial benefits of a renewable energy installation and those who do not (disproportionately women and those from marginalized groups), despite all community members living near the same installation.
Between RECs and other energy system actors, injustices can play out in several ways. Some REC members have felt coerced into participating in renewable energy installations or “bribed” by developers to have installations sited near their communities in exchange for cheaper prices. This dynamic runs counter to RED II’s intended purpose to create initiatives that empower local communities for a common good. A further looming tension accompanying the decentralization of energy production is the shift of fundamental responsibility to provide reliable power (especially on the national scale) from governments to citizens.
Beyond individual RECs in Europe, van Brommel & Höffken underscore structural factors that impede equitable opportunities to participate in RECs. Without training and incentives that specifically target marginalized populations, RECs will continue to benefit relatively well-resourced socioeconomic groups, amplifying existing social divides. Additionally, the authors note RECs are not (and should not be) in a position to address the substantial injustices inherent in the production of renewable energy infrastructure, including resource mining, shipping, and waste disposal.
Policymakers looking to shape and support RECs often navigate competing interests and realities. As van Brommel & Höffken, as well as Hoicka and colleagues, emphasize, policy must embrace a broad array of REC models in order to meet each community’s individual context while ensuring that REC structures aren’t coopted by corporate players seeking to take advantage of REC’s commercial potential. Laws and governance around RECs should be kept as simple and straightforward as possible to avoid becoming a barrier to entry into such communities. At the same time, policymakers must revise existing procedures to broaden REC participation among vulnerable and marginalized populations.
Different investment and ownerships models can also make entry for low-income households more feasible. Many early-adopter RECs use a cooperative model in which each household is afforded equal weight in decision-making, regardless of shareholder percentage. While very egalitarian in theory, in practice this approach has favored buy-in among those with substantial resources to engage (whether know-how, finances, or time). It also requires sizable upfront equity to install infrastructure.
Hoicka et al. as well as Hanke & Lowitzsch both emphasize that opting for an alternate model, such as a trustee scheme (Figure 1), can lessen the burden of upfront investment and facilitate entry for low-income households. In a trustee scheme, an intermediary (the trustee) secures a loan for the acquisition of infrastructure, which can be paid off upfront (for those who are financially able) or in monthly payments (in lieu of monthly energy bills). In this structure, the trustee must act in the interest of the household shareholders, and votes are weighted by percentage of ownership (RED II governance models already require that no REC shareholder owns more than 33 percent of assets). Van Bommel & Höffken caution that this approach can depart from a more egalitarian voting structure, but that low-income households benefit immensely from having an intermediary serve as a knowledgeable advocate through the process, as well as from lower upfront investments.
Figure 2. Structure of a trusteed scheme ownership model for renewable energy communities. Source: Hoicka et al. 2021.
In addition to ownership models, there are other levers that can reduce financial barriers to entry for low-income and vulnerable populations. Typically, owners of RECs make an initial investment with long-term payback timeframes. This type of return on investment is often not appealing or feasible for low-income households focused on how to pay their monthly energy bill. Hanke & Lowitzsch recommend providing grants, subsidies, and zero- or low-interest loans to low-income households to enter into RECs. Relatedly, van Brommel & Höffken propose having dedicated funding for establishing RECs that meet diversity metrics.
Van Bommel & Höffken advocate for greater national policy stability to make RECs sustainable. While establishing RECs requires a substantial investment of community members’ time and resources, they can be short-lived when changing national politics alter policies and support structures too quickly. This is especially important when seeking to expand energy justice through RECs. Low-income and vulnerable households can better engage in the process through financial incentives, but these must be reliably maintained. Likewise, national and regional actors should engage in steady partnerships with existing, trusted non-governmental organizations to aid in skill-building, awareness, and capacity for low-income and vulnerable households (Hanke & Lowitzsch 2020).
As RECs continue to grow in number and size, they will have greater political power. But, as van Brommel & Höffken point out, the onus for structural changes to drive decarbonization of national energy systems must remain with national governments. Similarly, it should remain up to national-level actors to rectify energy injustices. With energy justice as a central focus of RED II, assessment of these metrics in relation to RECs must also consider transnational injustices in the sourcing, transport, and disposal of renewable energy infrastructure.
The post Europe’s Energy Transition: Can Renewable Energy Communities Lead To Greater Energy Justice? appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.
As European nations operationalize their commitments to the Paris Agreement, policymakers from across the EU and the UK are promoting the creation of more renewable energy communities (RECs) to scale up decentralized renewable energy production across Europe. However, researchers argue that RECs could actually exacerbate socioeconomic divides. Local and national policies can address potential pitfalls and ensure that RECs can indeed be a mechanism for energy justice in the transition.
The post Europe’s Energy Transition: Can Renewable Energy Communities Lead To Greater Energy Justice? appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.
By Shelley Wenzel
This week, Energy Innovation launched the Oregon Energy Policy Simulator (EPS), our newest state-specific, open-source, peer-reviewed, and nonpartisan model that estimates the environmental, economic, and public health impacts of hundreds of climate and energy policies. The Oregon EPS joins our other state models, including California, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and Virginia.
Recent climate policies in Oregon have established the state as a climate leader, including a stronger transportation sector clean fuels standard, new zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty truck standards, and legislation establishing a timeline to fully decarbonize the power sector by 2040. Nevertheless, state policymakers must take additional action to achieve Oregon’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets of at least 45 percent below 1990 emissions by 2035 and at least 80 percent below by 2050.
The Oregon EPS can help state policymakers measure progress and design additional emissions reductions policies in the buildings, transportation, land use, and industry sectors. Modeling results show that increased ambition is not only possible, but that it creates dramatic economic, employment, and public health benefits.
When layered on top of current state policies, a deep decarbonization scenario, consistent with the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Climate Agreement (NDC Scenario), would cut economy-wide emissions 50 percent in 2035 and 74 percent in 2050 compared to 1990 levels. The NDC Scenario would also increase Oregon’s gross domestic product (GDP) by almost $4 billion annually, create more than 18,000 jobs, and avoid nearly 60 premature deaths and 900 asthma attacks annually in the year 2050.
Energy Innovation conducted analysis outlining five scenarios modeled with the Oregon EPS: the Business as Usual (BAU) Scenario, two Recent Policy Development scenarios, the Example Climate Protection Program (CPP) Scenario, and the NDC Scenario. The table below summarizes this research, showing total emissions under each policy scenario, along with the percentage of GHG emissions reductions below 1990 levels in 2035 and 2050 for each scenario.
Overall, we find that a strong electric vehicle (EV) sales standard and an EV subsidy, adopting fuel efficiency standards and supporting charging infrastructure buildout for EVs, and replacing fossil fuel equipment in buildings and industry with electric and other zero-carbon alternatives will be critical for cutting carbon emissions and consumer costs, while creating significant jobs and public health benefits.
Table 1. EPS policy scenario results in 2035 and 2050 relative to EO 20-04 emissions goals of 45 percent reductions below 1990 levels by 2035 and 80 percent by 2050. Emissions in this table exclude the land use and land-use change sector. *The modeled CPP Scenario does not explicitly include the ~2.5 MMT of assumed Community Climate Investments (explained in the CPP footnote). Including Community Climate Investments, 2050 emissions would be 24 MMT, or a 60 percent reduction relative to 1990 emissions.
The BAU Scenario estimates Oregon’s emissions trajectory prior to 2021 policy developments. With electricity as its own sector, Oregon’s two largest-emitting sectors in 2019 were transportation and electricity, at 35 percent and 29 percent of 2019 GHG emissions, respectively.[1] However as shown in Figure 1, when emissions from electricity generation are reallocated to the demand sectors, the GHG emissions breakdown by sector is as follows: 35 percent for transportation, 34 percent for buildings, 19 percent for industry, and 10 percent for agriculture. Decarbonizing electricity is crucial, especially within the buildings sector, since buildings create the largest electricity demand by a significant margin—at almost 70 percent.
Figure 1. Oregon’s 2019 GHG emissions from Oregon DEQ’s GHG Sector-Based Inventory, with electricity emissions reallocated to respective demand sectors. Elements of the Inventory have been recategorized in line with the classification system used by the EPS.
In 2021, Oregon initiated rulemaking for the recently expanded Oregon Clean Fuels Program targets, passed legislation requiring retail electricity providers to reduce GHG emissions of electricity sold to consumers 100 percent below baseline by 2040 (HB2021), and adopted the Clean Trucks Rule. The “Recent Policy Developments – No Added Imports Scenario” (No Added Imports Scenario) and the “Recent Policy Developments – Added Wind and Solar Imports Scenario” (Added Wind and Solar Imports Scenario) bookend the range of expected electricity sector emissions due to uncertainty around the state’s reliance on imported electricity.
In these scenarios, transportation sector emissions decrease 3 percent in 2035 and 15 percent in 2050 compared to the BAU Scenario. The scenarios also add jobs, averaging nearly 500 new jobs in the year 2050. Results also show an increase in GDP compared to the BAU Scenario, with the No Added Imports Scenario forecasting $40 million and the Added Wind and Solar Imports Scenario forecasting $140 million in added GDP in 2050. Oregon EPS findings also show public health benefits due to reductions in air pollution from burning fossil fuels, with approximately 200 avoided asthma attacks annually by 2050. The resulting emissions reductions and avoided health impacts are also estimated to avoid $1.5 billion in damages annually by 2050.[2]
Oregon’s new Climate Protection Program (CPP) mandates an emissions cap for covered natural gas and transportation fuels rather than specific policy actions. Because the CPP does not yet have a clear policy set to implement the goals, we include an example CPP Scenario, which models one possible pathway by adding new policies and strengthening current policies on top of what is already included in the No Added Imports Scenario. The scenario uses a combination of policy levers to meet the annual emissions caps specified by the CPP. Results show the Example CPP Scenario creates nearly 9,600 jobs and generates $2.5 billion in GDP in 2050, while also avoiding 600 asthma attacks and 40 premature deaths annually in 2050. On a percent change basis, we find avoided deaths are greater for people of color—the percentage reduction in premature deaths is 40 to 90 percent greater for people identifying as Black, Asian, or ‘other race,’ compared to people identifying as white. Monetized health and climate benefits reach almost $3.1 billion in 2050, amounting to a cumulative $49 billion through 2050.
The NDC Scenario delivers the greatest emissions reductions, adapted from a nationwide policy scenario developed by EI to meet the U.S. NDC of 50 to 52 percent below 2010 emissions by 2030.[3] When layered on top of current state policies, this scenario reduces economy-wide emissions 50 percent in 2035 and 74 percent in 2050 compared to 1990 levels. Some of the policies implemented in this scenario include an EV sales standard paired with an EV subsidy lasting through 2030, policies to increase Oregon’s grid-scale electricity storage potential and adding transmission capacity, industry standards for clean fuel usage and lower process emissions, and improved energy efficiency in buildings paired with transitioning buildings away from burning fossil fuels. Figure 2 illustrates the deep GHG emissions reductions attributed to each policy and compared to Oregon’s BAU trajectory.
Figure 2. “Wedge” chart for the NDC Scenario. This graph shows GHG emissions excluding Oregon’s land use and land use change sector, consistent with the fact Oregon’s EO targets do not include land use. However, land use policies are included in the NDC Scenario showing additional carbon sequestration opportunities in the bottom striped wedges. Note this wedge chart aggregates some policy levers to improve figure readability; a full interactive wedge graph is available on the Oregon EPS.
In total, NDC scenario investments would increase the state’s GDP by almost $4 billion annually and create more than 18,000 jobs in 2050. This broader set of climate policies would also improve public health due to reductions in harmful air pollution from burning fossil fuels. The Oregon EPS estimates the NDC Scenario policies would avoid approximately 30 premature deaths and 400 asthma attacks annually in 2035; these numbers increase to nearly 60 avoided premature deaths and 900 asthma attacks annually by 2050. Like in the CPP scenario, we find that the percentage reduction in premature deaths is 50 to 90 percent greater for people identifying as Black, Asian, or ‘other race,’ compared to people identifying as white.
Figure 3. Projected changes in GDP relative to BAU in the NDC Scenario.
Oregon has one of the fastest timelines in the nation for achieving clean power and has also adopted ambitious policies for decarbonizing transportation. Additional policies, particularly focused on electrification of transportation and buildings, can leverage this transition to achieve deeper decarbonization. EI’s NDC Scenario provides one possible policy pathway to cut emissions and achieve climate goals, while successfully growing the economy and creating new jobs. The Oregon EPS can help state policymakers measure progress and design effective emissions reductions policies in the buildings, transportation, land use, and industry sectors.
Notes
The post New Oregon Energy Policy Simulator Modeling Shows Major Benefits Of Accelerating Climate Policies appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.
The new Oregon Energy Policy Solutions model helps policymakers measure progress and design additional emissions reduction policies. Oregon EPS modeling finds more ambitious climate policies could cut emissions 74 percent and add $4 billion to the state’s economy by 2050.
The post New Oregon Energy Policy Simulator Modeling Shows Major Benefits Of Accelerating Climate Policies appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.
Energy Innovation partners with the independent nonprofit Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI) to provide climate and energy research updates. The research synopsis below comes from AGCI Research Director Julie A. Vano, and a full list of AGCI’s quarterly research updates covering recent climate change research on clean energy pathways is available online at https://www.agci.org/solutions/quarterly-research-reviews
Extreme weather events. Supply-chain shortages. Economic fallout. The disruptions of the past two years are increasing unease about future risks among global policymakers, prompting more careful consideration of how to include climate change in risk assessments.
Business leaders are among those rethinking how they evaluate climate risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), a group established by the Financial Stability Board to develop a framework for disclosing climate risks and opportunities, released a 2017 report that explains two types of climate-related risks businesses can face: First, risks related to the transition to a lower-carbon economy, including changing customer behavior, costs to adopt lower-emissions technologies, and increased exposure to litigation. Second, risks related to doing business in a changing physical environment, including increasingly severe extreme weather events, changing precipitation patterns, rising temperatures, and sea-level rise. Both types of risk vary considerably based on business type, size, and location.
As awareness of these types of climate risks grows, more businesses are struggling to quantify climate change impacts and source the data needed to help evaluate the risks identified by the TCFD. In recent years, the number of organizations pledging to support the TCFD’s landmark 2017 recommendations for disclosing information about climate risks and opportunities has increased rapidly. As of October 2021, these organizations included 1,069 financial institutions responsible for assets of $194 trillion (2021 TCFD).
To address businesses’ growing thirst for climate-related financial risk information, Tanya Fiedler of the University of Sydney Business School and Andy Pitman of the Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney, mobilized an interdisciplinary team with climate science, accounting, and business expertise. In their 2021 perspective on “Business risk and the emergence of climate analytics” for Nature Climate Change, Fiedler and colleagues outline the challenges and suggest a new path to improve the use of climate science to inform how businesses assess their climate-related financial risk.
Petabytes of tempting data
Climate scientists often use global climate models (or Earth system models) to understand climate change impacts. These models represent physical laws captured in computer code and simulated on supercomputers at research centers around the world. They help climate scientists better understand how greenhouse gases are increasing surface temperatures, how hydrologic cycles are amplified by warming (making wet periods wetter and dry periods drier), and how landmasses and the Arctic are warming more rapidly (Palmer and Stevens 2019).
Over the years, global climate models have provided more simulations, at finer spatial resolutions, generating petabytes of data (one petabyte could hold 4,000 photo downloads a day for a lifetime). Open-access data from these models are available online and may seem to offer a crystal ball for businesses to assess their future climate-related risk.
In reality, identifying and applying fit-for-purpose climate model data appropriately is a major challenge that, while not new, is more important than ever. As Fiedler and colleagues point out, “the misuse of climate models risks a range of issues, including maladaptation and heightened vulnerability of business to climate change, an overconfidence in assessments of risk, material misstatement of risk in financial reports and the creation of greenwash.”
Mismatched tools
While climate scientists and economists both use models to better understand future conditions, their modeling platforms and how the data outputs should be interpreted are very different. For example, climate models generate data by solving equations, which provide highly precise numbers. This precision is a modeling artifact and should not be confused with accuracy. Not acknowledging this or many other nuances could result in a false sense of security. As such, the use of global climate model data to assess climate-change risk must be done with careful consideration.
Fiedler and colleagues outline numerous qualifiers and precautions to prevent misuse of global climate model output at different spatial and temporal scales.
For climate information used for analysis at global and continental scales in 2050 to 2100: Global climate model simulations are designed for this regional extent and time period. An ensemble of independent models can be used to estimate projected temperature changes and their range of uncertainty, focusing on average changes. Global models should not, however, be relied on to capture low-probability, high-impact events.
For analysis at smaller-than-continental scales: Most global climate model simulations divide the globe into pixels of around 100 x 100 kilometers or coarser. The data they produce is not intended to be used to evaluate change in a specific location or physical asset. Techniques that “downscale” the information using dynamical or statistical methods can add value but should be employed with keen attention to the value (and biases) the new information provides.
For analysis in 2020 to 2050: Global climate models simulate climate variability, capturing the natural swings in warmer/cooler or wetter/drier periods at sub-regional scales that can last a decade or two. As such, it is difficult to distinguish the differences between higher- and lower-emissions pathways before mid-century.
For analysis of climate extremes: Extreme events, by definition, are rare and therefore less well understood. Important research is underway to explore how 1-in-100-year events are simulated in global models, but results are not robust enough for most applications, especially in the context of business decisions.
For analysis at the scale of a physical asset: For all the reasons outlined above, the information most desired in financial decision making—local changes in extreme weather events—is not what global climate models provide. Fortunately, there are alternative ways to assess climate impacts, but these can require careful region- and investment-specific evaluations.
A better way to match climate information with risk analysis
While the direct use of climate change data may not be a panacea, Fiedler and colleagues chart a path (Figure 1b) showing how climate science can help businesses and their investors, lenders, and insurance underwriters make informed economic decisions.
a. Current connections between climate research (blue shading) and business (pink shading), via scenarios, open access data archives and climate service providers. b. Redefining the connection between business and climate research. Source: Figure and caption from Fielder et al. 2020.
In their paper, the authors illustrate the current approach to connecting climate research and business (Figure 1a), where information usually flows in one direction. In some cases, climate service providers, sometimes in collaboration with financial sector experts (e.g., asset managers, banks, credit rating agencies), assist by combining information with other data to help assess an entity’s risk profile. However, those types of analyses are too often proprietary, and their scientific merit is difficult to assess.
As an alternative, Figure 1b illustrates how climate projections could be professionalized to inform business needs. Using both “climate service” and “operational prediction” intermediaries would provide mechanisms to facilitate the flow of information in both directions, as indicated by up and down arrows and the mixing of pink and blue at the boundaries.
This new paradigm emphasizes the need for more effective communication between business and climate science and reliance on expert judgment. Fielder and colleagues propose establishing “climate translators” as a new group of professionals who could help operationalize climate services by facilitating more direct engagement between climate scientists and businesses and bringing greater transparency to the value and limits of climate model information for business purposes.
Also, while climate models will continue to advance, it is wise not to wait for better information from them. Instead, there are alternative ways to use existing climate science to assess financial risks and minimize vulnerabilities. For example, examining how one’s business has been affected by weather variability in the past (five to 10 years, and longer if possible) can help uncover how specific events disrupt operations and supply chains and provide information that can be used to limit those vulnerabilities in the future.
A path forward
The increased awareness and desire to better understand a business’s climate risk has elevated the importance of both climate mitigation and adaptation. However, doing this work well requires more understanding of how to meet the financial sector’s needs. Fiedler and colleagues emphasize this will not simply be solved by open access to data or by climate service providers re-packaging information. Instead, they call for a redesign: “To meet the needs of the financial sector, regulators and business, climate projections need to be developed, undertaken and provided at the same level of professionalism as weather services.”
This call to action is being echoed by others in the financial sector and beyond. The TCFD (2021) reported that the key challenges for those preparing financial impact disclosures were difficulties in obtaining relevant climate risk-related data and selecting and applying assessment methodologies. Of note, these challenges were reported three times more often than other challenges related to financial impact disclosure including disclosure requirements or lack of buy-in from organizations.
Similar dialogues are underway in the water sector (Addressing the “Practitioners’ Dilemma”: Climate Information Evaluation for Practical Applications in the Water Sector) and energy sector (Navigating the Clean Energy Transition in a Changing Climate). These efforts are taking stock of ongoing work to produce decision-relevant climate information, evaluate the fitness of that information, and characterize its uncertainty in ways that facilitate an entity’s ability to effectively mitigate or adapt to these risks.
Common themes highlighted by these various efforts include the need for increased transparency, the ability to embrace probabilistic thinking, and finding a more systematic approach to assessment of climate science for applications. These needs can be met by more open discourse between the science community and financial sector—an exchange that could help drive scientific innovations that better support what climate-resilient businesses need.
Featured resources
The post Climate Science And Financial risk: Forging A Path To More Climate-Resilient Businesses appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.
As awareness of climate risks grows, more businesses are struggling to quantify climate change impacts, but applying climate model data appropriately is a major challenge. Researchers are identifying new ways climate science can help businesses, investors, and insurance underwriters make more informed decisions.
The post Climate Science And Financial risk: Forging A Path To More Climate-Resilient Businesses appeared first on Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.
