What will the collapse of Atlantic currents mean for the Nordics?

/in , /by

Atlantic currents redistribute heat and cold. If it stops working, the results could be catastrophic. Source: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

New research suggests the risk of a breakdown in North Atlantic currents to be nearly four times higher than previously thought.

The most recent IPCC report said that the collapse of the AMOC was less than 10% likely before 2100. A new study, Shutdown of northern Atlantic overturning after 2100 following deep mixing collapse in CMIP6 projections, examines a longer timeframe and says that the chances are much higher. In the best-case scenario, with lower carbon emissions, a shutdown of the northern AMOC is still 25% likely by 2300. If emissions continue to increase, as they are currently, the likelihood of a shutdown jumps to 70%.

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is the main ocean current system in the Atlantic. It brings warm salty water to Northern Europe from around the Gulf of Mexico (hence the name Gulf Stream) and returns cold less-salty water to the south.

As GHG emissions continue, the planet warms and ice sheets melt, releasing fresh water into the oceans. It is believed that this influx of fresh water will disrupt the entire system, breaking this process which redistributes heat to the North.

There is uncertainty here, because scientists aren’t sure 1) if AMOC will collapse, 2) when it will collapse and 3) what will happen if it does. Generally, current research suggests the Nordics will suffer from the following.

  • Overall cooling, particularly in the winter
  • More intense cold extremes; winter storms will strengthen
  • Larger day-to-day temperature fluctuations

Some of the possible results of these changes include:

  • Greater energy needs for heating
  • Higher maintenance costs on buildings, vehicles and infrastructure
  • More likelihood of power failures
  • Higher insurance costs
  • More transport disruptions
  • Damage to agriculture, aquaculture and forestry industries

Climate change really does have a financial cost to people, businesses and society. Any company doing long-term planning should be taking these increased risks and costs into consideration.

Want to talk green?

I can help you to stay compliant with changing sustainability reporting requirements, communicate what’s important, and find added value in the process.

info at davidjcord.com

How will America’s gutting of climate science impact businesses?

/in , /by

Artist rendition of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite OCO-2. Image by John Howard / JPL.

The United States is probably the world’s largest contributor to global climate change science and research. It provides a big chunk of ground-based data and is the largest single provider of satellite data. About a fifth of climate modelling and research comes out of American institutions. Much of this is on the chopping block.

The current American administration is proposing huge budget cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency and many academic research grants and programmes focusing on the climate. Perfectly good satellites, like the Orbiting Carbon Observatory instruments, are planned to be destroyed, according to NPR. NASA alone will have €2.9 billion cut from its science budget.

The results of this will include the loss of critical data which is used by everyone from weather forecasters to farmers to insurance companies. In corporate reporting, many companies rely upon these datasets for their disclosures, risk analysis and transition plans. Much of the high-quality data collected by American government institutions is open access, free for anyone to use. Alternative sources, if even available, could be expensive and less reliable.

In recent years America has chosen to stop being a global leader in many areas. Could others pick up the slack?

China has its Fengyun and Gaofen series of satellites, which focus on meteorology and monitoring, respectively. India also has a fleet of modern Earth-observation satellites. Europe has EUMETSAT, the agency for monitoring weather, climate and the environment from space. It has a budget of €763 million, which is only about 23% of NASA’s science budget even after the cuts.

Some private companies, such as MSCI, S&P and a partnership between Intercontinental Exchange and Dun & Bradstreet, will sell climate data to businesses. Overall, though, these sources are likely to be poor substitutes compared to what we used to get.

Although the proposed dismantling of America’s climate science infrastructure has not yet been approved by Congress, it would be safe to start planning for the worst.

Want to talk green?

I can help you to stay compliant with changing sustainability reporting requirements, communicate what’s important, and find added value in the process.

info at davidjcord.com

The worse risks aren’t the hidden ones – they are the mispriced ones

/in , /by

The Science Based Targets Network can help uncover hidden risks, as well as price them.

Source: SBTN

Warren Buffett made his fortune by understanding and properly pricing risks. When Berkshire Hathaway takes a financial hit, Buffett almost always acknowledges the problem was not missing a risk; it was mispricing it.

In 1997 he wrote: “A pernicious aspect of catastrophe insurance, however, makes it likely that mispricing, even of a severe variety, will not be discovered for a very long time.” We can replace the phrase “catastrophe insurance” with “climate change” and the statement is still valid.

When you look through a company’s annual reports you can see they recognise the financial risks of climate issues. Most of these risks aren’t hidden, but are they properly priced?


Here is where the Science Based Targets can help. The purpose of the SBTs is not to put a euro sign on these risks, but rather to identify, measure and mitigate specific pressures, including land/sea use change, resource exploitation, pollution, climate change and invasives species.

The SBT process is extremely valuable in other ways, such as complying with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and pricing risks. The SBT process encourages companies to integrate climate-related issues into risk management and decision-making.

These risks can include:

  • Higher cost of capital
  • Stranded legacy assets or business models
  • Higher insurance costs and higher chance of catastrophic events
  • Reputational damage
  • Loss of access to raw materials or critical resources
  • Litigation

It is difficult to accurately price these risks, but it is nearly impossible to price them without first objectively measuring at-risk resources or processes, such as through the SBT process.

In the SBTN’s excellent introductory module they have a slide which explains how their process can help a company identify risks. They should also emphasise how SBTs can be the first step in pricing those risks. There is a lot of added value from the SBT process which isn’t immediately apparent.