This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
wireless industry to set science-based targets (SBTs) to significantly cut its carbon emissions by 2025 and help the company mitigate the risks of climatechange. When the Un-carrier made headlines to earn that industry-first RE100 commitment earlier this year, it also achieved those carbon targets four years ahead of schedule.
Axelsson and her co-authors are by no means the first to criticize existing corporate carbon accounting practices. Over the past several years, academics, think tanks, and even government agencies have suggested ways to boost transparency and make companies’ net-zero pledges easier to compare.
Our guidance comes from recently published research that reviewed academic and practical guidance on greenwashing and legal frameworks in the EU, United Kingdom, and United States. This distracts from the urgency of the climate crisis and slows action. Below, we boil it down 10 kinds of greenwashing — and tips to avoid each.
In this era of our growth, climatechange is a defining issue that we must actively address. Our ambitious Carbon Zero objective drives our efforts to eliminate and offset our Scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions. Demonstrating leadership through our Carbon Zero objective.
As media investigations reignite the debate on the viability of carbonoffsets, academics argue for wider stakeholder engagement and changes to carbon accounting approaches to build robustness. Greta Thunberg said it showed “the ugly truth of carbonoffsetting”.
The Climate Action Coalition wants to link business and finance, NGOs, academics and governments to accelerate climate action. The world’s 2030 climate goals are still within reach, but time is running out and solutions must be sought with renewed vigour over the next five years. C pathway in sight, Skidmore said.
This has convinced the Bunloit team and their academic partners to reverse the estate from a ‘net carbon source’ into a ‘net carbon sink’ and take drastic measures such as cutting down the non-native conifer plantations, which are widely grown for timber, pulp, and Christmas trees.
How to Set Business Targets That Help Address ClimateChange (Photo by Andreas Gücklhorn on Unsplash ) This article by Matthew Lynch , Rob Klassen , and Chelsea Hicks-Webster is part of “ The Basics ” series by the Network for Business Sustainability (NBS) that provides essential knowledge about core business sustainability topics.
According to CNBC , most money managers who use ESG (environmental, social, governance) factors in their investment analysis have focused on the E, or climatechange, as their leading criteria for their decisions. Reducing carbon emissions and mitigating the risks of climatechange for investors is a major accomplishment.
This means the companies are on a pathway to net zero, according to a third-party assessment, but that’s not necessarily the same as targeting net zero by 2050 and may not be consistent with the remaining carbon budget. It may, for example, include predictions on new forms of technology or substantial use of carbonoffsets.”
"People are beginning to ask more questions about how their money is working for them as it relates to financial returns, or how it might be working against them in the creation of extractive economies, climatechange or labor issues.". says Simon Konig, executive director of Climate Focus North America. billion acres to 1.9
"How does their agenda affect the macroeconomy, the wealth distribution and the risks posed by climatechange?" What if the Federal Reserve was run by John Cochrane and there was no ClimateChange Mandate? In the face of ambiguous climatechange, some of these bets will prove to be "bad bets".
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content