Climate & Economy – Page 2 – COP 20: Lima, Peru

November 2, 2014

Another Obstacle on the Road to Sustainable Development

By Maeve Hogel

When it comes to talking about climate change, it is easy to leave the conversation feeling like there is no hope left for the world. Greenhouse gas emissions are rising and policies have yet to be drastic enough to bring levels down where they need to be. Sitting in the comfort of a highly developed country, climate change means having to sacrifice some luxuries, like driving large SUVs, that have become customary. Looking through the eyes of a developing country, climate change hits harder and faster, interfering with the ability to ever reach a point where the developed country’s luxuries would even be attainable. Climate change, among other factors, is certainly an obstacle in the way of sustainable development. Developing countries need financial support, incentives to develop sustainably and help adapting to the damage that has already been caused.

The global nature of climate change requires cooperation from all countries, both developed and developing, despite who was historically the source of emissions. However, even with the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities” supported by the UNFCCC, developing countries inherently get hit harder by climate change and have less ability to do anything about it. South Center’s report, Integrating Development in Climate Change, discusses that idea of developed countries taking a larger role in decreasing emissions in order to give incentives to developing countries to develop in a sustainable manner (South Center, 7). Developing sustainably, by diversifying the energy sector and increasing reliance on renewable energies can be both environmentally and economically beneficial for a developing country. However, most developing countries do not have the money or resources to implement new policies or develop new technologies. If climate change was not a concern, developing countries could continue to develop exactly how the United States did; by industrializing rapidly without a care about how much CO₂ is being emitted. Climate change does exist though, and therefore countries need to develop with climate-friendly policies and technologies. South Center states that future climate change policy “should ensure that the best appropriate technologies for climate change monitoring, mitigation and adaptation be a made available to developing countries…”(17). However, how to make these technologies available and how to finance them are the more difficult questions. Essentially, developing countries cannot develop sustainably, in a world where climate change exists, without the assistance of developed countries.

The path to development is a long one. Climate change adds just another obstacle in order for a developing country to develop sustainable. However, obstacles are meant to be overcome, and it is still possible to develop sustainably in a world with climate change. Global cooperation is necessary and shared responsibilities between developed and developing countries. Getting all countries to make the best decisions, not only for themselves, but for the environment has certainly shown not be an easy feat. Climate change makes sustainable development more difficult, but it doesn’t make it impossible.

South Center, Intergrating Development in Climate Change. Nov. 2007.

October 29, 2014

Naomi Oreskes’ new book

Image of Naomi Oreskes is from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/science/naomi-oreskes-imagines-the-future-history-of-climate-change.html?ref=earth&_r=2

Earlier this week Oreskes appeared in an interview in the New York Times. She spoke about her new book about the future in a world that has warmed. It would be an interesting read and builds on what she wrote about in Merchants of Doubt. If you are interested, you can check out her interview here.

October 17, 2014October 17, 2014

Proud of my Green State

Anyone who has interacted with me enough to discover where I am from, knows I am proud to be from the Golden State. I love the landscapes, the access to the outdoors, the food, the people.. in short I love my state. Part of this love comes from the role California has as a leader of environmental sustainability. It is currently the nations top producer of solar energy (in 2013, 18% of our power came from solar), and is rated number one in clean technology (Bennett). None of this is to say that don’t have annoyance and anger towards the egregious environmental short comings of my state (don’t get me started on fracking, or almond production) but AB 32 reminds me of the environmental promise in California.

The the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) is one of the most comprehensive actions to mitigate climate change while living up to its promises of co-benefits. It takes a multitrack approach with, “Reductions in GHG emissions [that] will come from virtually all sectors of the economy and will be accomplished from a combination of policies, planning, direct regulations, market approaches, incentives and voluntary efforts” (“Assembly Bill 32 Overview.”). It will improve energy efficiency, expand renewable energy, improve public transportation, reduce emissions, waste and increase technology all while saving consumers money, and improving community health (“Assembly Bill 32 Overview.” and Alvord). According to the Union of Conserned Scientists, “A recent study found that California’s low carbon fuel standard and cap-and-trade programs will save $8.3 billion in health costs between now and 2025 by reducing asthma attacks, hospitalizations, and other health impacts associated with poor air quality” (Alvord). AB 32’s ultimate aim is to return California’s net emissions by to 1990 levels by 2020 and the more ambitious aim of reducing emission 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (“Assembly Bill 32 Overview.”).

Three cheers for my home state!

A picture of me and my sister backpacking in the Lost Coast in Northern California

Work Cited:

Alvord, Adrienne. “Big Oil, Climate Change, and California’s AB32.” The Equation: Union of Concerned Scientists . N.p., 30 Sept. 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. <http://blog.ucsusa.org/big-oil-climate-change-and-californias-ab32-669>.

“Assembly Bill 32 Overview.” California Environmental Protection Agency. Ca.gov, n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. <http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm

Bennett, Lisa. “Rays of Hope in California.”The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 2 Oct. 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bennett/rays-of-hope-in-californi_b_5916096.html>.

October 15, 2014October 15, 2014

Discounting the Future

Many of the possible effects that climate change poses have a temporal component to them: they will be realized and compounded over time. Thus, the actions and inactions of today’s generation will have significant effects on those that come afterwards. This compounding effect has a fair amount of consensus among environmental economists; however, there is not consensus on how much we should take those future effects into account during current decision-making processes for policies that might effect climate change. This disagreement revolves around the discount rate, defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the “rate at which society as a whole is willing to trade off present for future benefits.” Because investment is inherently productive (that is to say, money is interest-bearing), resources on hand today are more valuable than resources available later; the difference in the values placed upon money today and in the future is where the disagreement lies.

Take, for example, a future benefit of $1000 to be accrued in ten years: how much would I need to put in the bank now in order to have that $1000 at the end of the decade? At a discount rate of 5%, it would be $613.90; at a discount rate of 8%, it would be lower, at $463.20. Thus, the higher discount rate signals that society is more focused on present benefits than future benefits.

Let’s look at this in the context of climate change. As a society, how much are we willing to spend now in order to protect the climate system from further “dangerous anthropogenic interference,” as is the UNFCCC’s stated objective, and to avoid future costs and damages? At a lower discount rate, we place a higher value upon the maintenance of the climate system and pay a higher premium now in order to protect future generations. At a higher discount rate, we place a higher value upon the current energy consumption patterns and are not willing to pay as high of a premium.

In Environmental Economics, my “wild-card” elective course for the Mosaic this semester, we discussed the argument that a near-zero discount rate is the most appropriate response to the effects of climate change. We need to take aggressive action now and invest as much in climate mitigation and adaptation as possible in order to stay below the 2 degree Celsius threshold put forward by the UNFCCC. If we do not do so, the costs borne upon future generations will be greater, as will the damages and level of disruption to our lifestyle that will occur from climatic change. A discount that is higher than zero or near-zero could jeopardize the 2 degree threshold, undercut the international negotiations of the UNFCCC, and threaten the generations that will come after us.

October 14, 2014

The Trillion Tonne Communique

Where does change happen? This is a very common question at Dickinson. The general answer is that it starts with yourself, spreads through your community, and then through the globe. For the purposes of what I want to discuss, change can happen with businesses too. In terms of climate change many look to business and the market as a significant factor to where GHG concentrations are currently. This is a large of debate and an entire separate discussion. What I am going to focus on is how businesses can make change happen by being vocal activists.

The Prince of Whales Climate Leadership Group (CLG) provides a forum for businesses around the world to come together and make their collective voices heard about the urgency of climate change issues. The CLG communiques are the outlet for this voice. Six have been released thus far, with the seventh not far from release. At first they followed significant COP decisions, but recently have been focused on broader issues. For instance, the most recent was in support of a global carbon price.

The next communique is nearly ready and firms have already begun to sign it. This seventh communique, the Trillion Tonne Communique, is for those who support the idea of a trillion tonne cap on carbon emitted. This is the number that was put, as a limit, to the 2 degrees Celsius maximum. It was brought to the attention of the mosaic a few weeks ago and immediately we acted on it. A letter was drafted to the President of the College and the Chair of the Board asking them to support Dickinson signing on to the Communique. The next day we had a meeting with the President, who then told us to pursue it through the chain of committees that would have been traditionally followed. It is now under review and we hope to have an answer in time for COP20.

Screen Shot 2014-10-13 at 11.30.09 PM — The TTC registration form.

Now, you may be thinking, Dickinson College is not a business. It is not, but it is a registered non-profit and therefore able to sign on. Why do this? For one, it is a simple gesture- as no real pledge needs to be made. On another level this could ignite an entirely new conversation and network. Imagine businesses and institutions of higher education collaborating and using their very different voices to demand action on climate change at an international level.

We will see what happens as we approach a meeting of the Dickinson Board and as we near COP20 in December. Let me know your thoughts on this below!

October 4, 2014

WANTED: Adaption at Home and Abroad… NOW

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNcUC1xUB5c”]

A basic principle of the UNFCCC agreement is CBDR, or Common but Differentiated Responsibilities. This stems from the idea that based on historical emissions, developing countries should not have their development taxed because of harm to the environment caused by already developed countries’ development 100 years ago. Because of this, developed countries are held responsible for funding any climate change efforts developing countries decide to embark on. Furthermore, developed countries are to share information and technology to help developing countries develop in a “greener” way than developed countries had in the past.

My question is, how can we do this if we still haven’t gotten the hang of smart development in our own country? I’m not suggesting the U.S. should help itself before it helps others, but instead should be taking a bilateral approach to both change domestic ways and provide support internationally for cleaner development.

Yesterday, the story “With Dry Taps and Toilets, California Drought Turns Desperate” made the front page of the NYTimes. Households in California, and especially those in Tulare County, a rural county with especially impoverished residents and barely any water. With three years of drought and still going strong, the California drought, although as a single event it cannot be attributed to climate change, calls for more caution when dealing with the climate. Even in one of the richest country in the world, the U.S. still doesn’t seem to be able to come up with even effective adaptation plans, never mind mitigation. One family the article focuses on hasn’t had running water for more than five months. How is the U.S. caring for these Californians? They aren’t. When families call the state and local governments for advice, they are told there are no public agencies set up to help them. Water is provided through bottled water from residents’ pockets and local charities. Even the counting of households without water is spotty, with an estimate of 700 households, overlooking households in rural areas with dried-up wells. One volunteer is quoted describing the drought as “it’s a slow-moving disaster that nobody knows how to handle” (Medina 18).

The U.S. is obviously having trouble preparing for and dealing with the “slow-moving” crises brought on by climate change, so how can it be expected to help others? The solution is not, as I said before, to focus on itself first before it helps others. There is no time to wait; climate change does not wait for domestic pilots, it comes when it wants, where it wants, and countries must be as ready as best they can. This means focusing on security threats from more than just other states but from the earth itself. The U.S. needs to take the terrible lessons it’s learning in California to realize that a much more though-out, cross-sector, and multi-level approach must be employed in adapting to climate change domestically and globally.

Medina, Jennifer. 2014. “With Dry Taps and Toilets, California Drought Turns Desperate.” The New York Times, October 3, p. 1, A18.

October 2, 2014October 2, 2014

Start Small Then Go Big: Clinton Climate Initiative

Chapter 3 of “Governing Climate Change” starts out with the statement “…climate change is an issue of concern not only on international and national agenda, but also for an array of transnational networks.”[1] So many transnational networks are being created with the purpose of addressing climate change. One of these many transnational networks is the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI). Former President Bill Clinton launched this initiative in 2006 with the expectation of fighting climate change in realistic and effective ways. CCI works with major large cities on a global scale to find potential solutions that will reduce carbon emissions and increase energy efficiency.[2]

The four basic programs that the CCI is currently involved in are the Climate Leadership Group (C40), Forestry Program, Islands Energy Program, and the Energy Efficiency Program. C40 was first taken up by the CCI in 2007. “Activities which this network is undertaking include collaboration with Microsoft to produce software for greenhouse gas emissions accounting at the city scale, and the Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program, which “brings together cities, building owners, banks, and energy-service companies to make changes to existing buildings to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”[3] It has the goal of committing sustainable activities that are intended to reduce climate change on a global scale. Every area of the world is equally represented in C40’s goals by being based in almost all of the continents.

The Forestry Program works with governments and communities in developing countries to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by creating sustainable resolutions for managing forests and lands. The goal of this program is to provide developing countries with the information and resources to improve land use. They do this by reducing carbon emissions by planting trees, improving farming practices, and building carbon measurement systems.[4] The Islands Energy Program is partnered with governments of twenty-five island nations. Its purpose is to develop renewable energy projects, and design and implement waste/water solutions that will cut fossil fuel usage.

The Energy Efficiency Program works to discover the obstacles to achieving a huge reduction in the amount of energy used by buildings. “In fact in the United States commercial and residential buildings accounted for over 40 percent of primary energy consumption.”[5] That is a huge amount of energy consumption. The program works with public and private organizations, not limited to corporations, governments, and fellow non-profits.

According to Bulkeley and Newell, the boundaries between private and public actors in transnational climate governance are increasingly indistinct. Transnational networks such as the CCI actually helped increase the outline of municipal responses to climate change internationally.[6] In order to prevent climate change, the Clinton Climate Initiative operates in cooperation with companies, political groups and nonprofit organizations that aim to protect the environment. The first step begins with local communities, proceeds to spread to countries and then makes its way to have an effect on a global scale. You have to start small then go big.

[1] Bulkeley, Harriet, and Peter Newell. Governing Climate Change. London: Routledge, 2010. 54, Print

[2] LearnStuff. Clinton Climate Initiative – LearnStuff. Web accessed September 2014.

[3] Ibid, 60.

[4] Clinton Foundation. Clinton Climate Initiative. Web accessed September 2014.

[5] Clinton Foundation. Clinton Climate Initiative. Web accessed September 2014.

[6] Ibid, 60.

October 2, 2014

Protecting Against Climate Change: Priceless

The cover of Frank Ackerman's book — The cover of Frank Ackerman’s book

By Maeve Hogel

Economics is certainly not for everyone. It has a lot of numbers and graphs, it can seem incredibly boring and it often relies on a lot of assumptions. Even as an economics major, I sometimes found myself zoning out while learning micro and macro. However, this semester in Environmental Economics, the topics are not so abstract. I am getting the opportunity to take everything I have learned in the past three years of economics courses and apply it to one specific topic: climate change.

If you haven’t studied economics extensively in the past, that doesn’t mean you can’t gain a rich understanding of climate economics. Frank Ackerman, a well known climate economist, wrote a paper called Climate Economics in Four Easy Pieces. I’m not going to say that climate economics is an easy topic to study. It takes the basic micro and macro economics and adds complications and sticky situations that make it more difficult to find a solution. For example, obviously you want benefits to outweigh costs, but when it comes to climate change, how does one even begin to measure those costs? However, Ackerman’s paper breaks it down to the four most important things to remember: “your grandchildren’s lives are important, we need to buy insurance for the planet, climate damages are too valuable to have prices, and some costs are better than others” (Ackerman, 326).

Although I encourage everyone to read the paper themselves (its not very long and its a quick read), the main points can be inferred from those four main points. Ackerman’s point is that it’s important to pay the cost now or else our grandchildren’s lives in the future will be paying for it even more. However, most people aren’t willing to foot a cost now when they don’t know how grave the situation will be. We are always in search of answers and are unwilling to do A without knowing for sure that it will result in B. However, Ackerman demonstrates that we willing buy insurance without being sure that B will happen because even the slightest chance that it will is not worth it. Climate change is worth paying the price to protect ourselves. It is a large external cost that Ackerman argues is too important to even have a price and the costs it does have are beneficial economically in the long run. It is an easy out to claim that climate change policies will be too costly and will hurt economic growth, but in reality protecting our ecosystems, our future generations, our planet and ourselves is priceless.

October 1, 2014October 12, 2014

Transnational Network: The Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance

The Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) is a transnational network involved in climate change governance through an intersectional approach involving a diverse range of actors. Conservation International and a collection of five non-governmental organizations comprising its membership, including CARE and the Rainforest Alliance, founded the network in 2003.[i] In addition to these members the CCBA has an advising group of international research institutions (three in total, including the World Agroforestry Center) and the donors to the network (including philanthropic foundations and corporations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and British Petroleum).[ii]^,[iii] The goal of this alliance is to validate and verify projects that attempt to mitigate climate change through land management while positively serving the native population of that area, from the project’s conception throughout its implementation.[iv] CCBA does this through creating a set of Climate Community and Biodiversity (CCB) standards that generates reliable carbon credits. The CCBA acts as a transnational governing force rather effectively by setting a reputable and premium standard to assist in the regulation of the global carbon market.

In the international climate change discussion, ideas of equity and justice are often raised, and so is the case when discussing issues of land use. The way land is used has huge implications for global climate change; it can be a large contributing factor to emissions through activities such as deforestation or can aid in mitigation through activities such as conservation of biodiversity. Plans of mitigation through “carbon forestry” raised concerns that these projects would inevitably be unjust to native communities because of the high potential of consequences such as displacement of communities.[v] The foundation of CCBA and the CCB standards was to address these concerns in a meaningful way. The creation of CCBA dealt with this issue by not only creating a set of standards that would prohibit adverse effects of land use mitigation projects on native peoples but would also promote and require positive gains or, “co-benefits” for both the community and the environment in projects they validated.[vi]

The CCBA is able to promote and instigate these net positive projects through its CCB label. This is a process that involves a certification of “validation” that is an acknowledgment that the project has been heavily analyzed, reviewed and decidedly fulfills the CCB standards.[vii] Validation builds support for the project that then makes implementation and success of the project more likely. After a project has been validated it is then “verified,” which enforces accountability to follow through on promises for co-benefits.[viii] When carbon credits have the CCB label, it signifies they have passed validation and verification and is a high quality credit to the buyer.[ix] A study by the Ecosystem Marketplace’s State of the Forest Carbon Market showed that the investors and offset buyers were more likely to pay extra for the CCB label due to its multilateral approach and diverse range of benefits.[x] This positive reputation has gone hand in hard with increasing number of projects voluntarily seeking approval of CCB standards. In 2010 there were 19 validated projects and 21 in the process, however, over the course of the next three years there 70 projects total were validated, 19 undergoing validation, and 12 projects receiving the CCB label.[xi]^,[xii] The success of this process of transnational governance is illustrated by the estimated 8 million hectares of land conserved, 180,000 hectares of land restored, totaling roughly 40 million tons of CO₂emissions sequestered.[xiii] Presently, the number of CCB standards approved projects is, in the global picture, minimal. However, the fact these numbers have been increasing rapidly over the past few years eludes to a growing capacity of governing global climate change

Overall, the Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance and the resulting standards appears to be quite effective in achieving its goal of filling a governance function to regulate land use projects that claim to be equitable to communities, have net positive mitigation benefits for the climate and increase the biodiversity and ecology of the land. It has done so by establishing its network and certifications as a reputable marker of governance through its enforcement of accountability and transparency, while engaging market based solutions to global climate change.

This video is an example of the types of projects CCBA deals with.

[youtube_sc url=”http://vimeo.com/31433182″ title=”Conserving%20Rainforests%20and%20Sustaining%20Indigenous%20Communities:%20The%20Story%20of%20the%20Peñablanca%20Sustainable%20Reforestation%20Project”]

Work Cited:

“About the CCBA” CCBA: The Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. http://www.climate-standards.org/about-ccba/

Bulkeley, Harriet, and Peter Newell. Governing climate change. London: Routledge, 2010. Print.

“CCBA Fact Sheet” CCBA: The Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. https://s3.amazonaws.com/CCBA/CCB_Standards_FactSheet.pdf

“CCBA Standards.” CCBA: The Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. http://www.climate-standards.org/ccb-standards/

Melo, Isabel, Esther Turnhout, and Bas Arts. “Integrating multiple benefits in market-based climate mitigation schemes: The case of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity certification scheme.” Environmental Science & Policy 35 (2014): 49-56. Web.

Wood, Rachel Godfrey. Carbon finance and pro-poor co-benefits: the gold standard and climate, community and biodiversity standards. London: Sustainable Markets Group, International Institute for Environment and Development, 2011. Web.

[i] Bulkeley, Harriet, and Peter Newell. Governing climate change. London: Routledge, 2010. Print. Pg 65.

[ii] Bulkeley, Harriet, and Peter Newell.

[iii] “About the CCBA” CCBA: The Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. http://www.climate-standards.org/about-ccba/

[iv] “CCBA Standards.” CCBA: The Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. http://www.climate-standards.org/ccb-standards/

[v] Wood, Rachel Godfrey. Carbon finance and pro-poor co-benefits: the gold standard and climate, community and biodiversity standards. London: Sustainable Markets Group, International Institute for Environment and Development, 2011. Web.

[vi] Wood, Rachel Godfrey.

[vii] “CCBA Standards.”

[viii] “CCBA Standards.”

[ix] “CCBA Fact Sheet” CCBA: The Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. https://s3.amazonaws.com/CCBA/CCB_Standards_FactSheet.pdf

[x] “CCBA Fact Sheet”

[xi] Wood, Rachel Godfrey.

[xii] “CCBA Fact Sheet”

[xiii] “CCBA Fact Sheet”

October 1, 2014

The Carbon Disclosure Project: One Carbon Atom Closer to Change

By Elizabeth Plascencia

The Carbon Disclosure Project Logo

The term climate accounts for the prevailing trends in weather for a given area overtime. Accordingly, how does this projection suddenly become “global”? It is disseminated at the very nature of it all – greenhouse gases (GHG) are not held liable under any physical boundaries. Consequently, all emissions are subject to one atmosphere and repercussions are therefore global in that respect. Ranging from small local movements to large international agreements, efficiently and effectively addressing global climate change entails action on all levels. Through the work of cooperative transnational networks there is an active movement towards widespread involvement. With specific attention to the second most abundant GHG in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide (CO2), the transnational organization of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is an international, non-profit body that provides the “…only system for companies and cities to measure, disclose, manage, and share vital environmental information” (CDP, 2014). CDP effectively advances its objectives with respect to governing climate change by providing a public platform for global emissions information sharing which directly drives market forces to sustainable economies.

Historically, international agreements requesting a reduction in national GHG emissions (i.e. Kyoto Protocol) have gained minimal widespread momentum. The Carbon Disclosure Project’s success may be due to the fact that it works in such a way that creates a market force pressure on firms and businesses to invest in renewable rather than carbon intensive fuel in order to reduce emissions. As per its public platform on emissions, “The CDP now covers US $57 trillion worth of assists from over 3,000 companies. The scope of private regulation is, therefore, impressive and reaches key actors not subject to other forms of governance” (Bulkeley, p. 99). It is clear that the CDP is actively working towards a long-term sustainable global economy by providing widespread evidence and management of environmental impact.

Though frequently seen as separate within international negotiations, climate change and business are fused together and “The CDP provides a secretariat for the world’s largest institutional investor collaboration on the business implications of climate change” (Bulkeley, p. 99). CDP’s approach to climate change is directly linked to a transformation in the global economic system. As opposed to the convectional separation of business from the realm of climate change, CDP provides a platform for cities and companies to evaluate their respective emissions and make progress into a more energy efficient agenda which would not only benefit their company but also the welfare of the planet and its inhabitants. The CDP’s main goals are listed below (CDP, 2014):

Request information n greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and the risks and opportunities from climate change from thousands of the world’s largest companies. Through measurement and transparency companies are better placed to manage and protect themselves from climate change risk.
Use the power of the shareholder to drive greenhouse gas emissions reduction. We coordinate a request from a group of investors asking the world’s largest companies in high emitting sectors to implement cost-effective emissions reductions. This expands on our climate change disclosure request to accelerate greater action by companies around the world.
Provide companies with carbon management support services. We have developed a services package that helps companies take a rigorous approach to carbon management, benchmark business performance, and learn best practices.

Nearly eleven years from the first carbon data request to corporations, the Carbon Disclosure Project continues to inform large corporations and stakeholders about emissions. Continued expansion within new sectors such as forestry and water rights drive CDP towards the creation of a sustainable future.

Check out this interview of Paul Simpson, Chief Executive Officer at CDP, from COP19 in Warsaw, Poland.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfqRf3xYqZM”]

Bibliography

Bulkeley, Harriet, and Newell, Peter. Governing Climate Change. Routledge, 2010.

CDP – Driving Sustainable Economies. “About CDP – Catalyzing business and government action” https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Pages/About-Us.aspx. 2014

CDP – Driving Sustainable Economies. “Alliances” https://www.cdp.net/en-US/OurNetwork/Pages/alliances.aspx. 2014

CDP – Driving Sustainable Economies. “Our Climate Change Work” https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Programmes/Pages/climate-change-programs.aspx. 2014

CDP – Driving Sustainable Economies. “What we do – CDP Worldwide” https://www.cdp.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/Pages/cdp-worldwide.aspx. 2014

Lee, Taedong. “Global Cities and Transnational Climate Change Networks.” Global Environmental Politics. Vol. 13.1 (2013) pp. 108-128.