Top Three Reasons to Love Your Index

The top three reasons to use an index

Some of you will disagree with the title immediately.   Indices, among other complaints, are prone to lack transparency, magnify errors, misrepresent details…and you get the message.

But you may realize how frequently indices enter into your decision-making.  A recent staff meeting of ours uncovered three major ones used today: NASDAQ for our investments, U.S. News and World Report college rankings for our kids and the Big Mac Index to settle a bet.

Much as we love to critique (and criticize) indices, they do have their place. Please read through my top three reasons for using an index; then tell me what you agree – and disagree – with.

1. Indexes have readily available relative information that sparks dialogues and invites further investigations.

2. Indexes often invite new audiences to a concept that differs from their area of interest because they combine different variables rather than looking at them in isolation.

3. Indexes provide measures for change that, otherwise, are not quantifiable with a numeric indicator.

The most satisfying indexes allow those who use them to control variables and scenario analysis that visualize the effects of each index component.  This is what turns them from conversation starters to decision-making tools.

For adaptation indexes, I’ll possess the disadvantages while still celebrating the ability to start a conversation about results leaders who take steps toward resiliency often obtain.  I’m particularly struck by the opportunity to measure climate adaptation long-term through ND-GAIN. Coming from the climate mitigation world, I miss my tidy metric ton of greenhouse-gas equivalent as a way to measure progress. No neat unit exists for climate adaptation.  But through an index that tracks change over time, you can detect relative shifts in vulnerability and readiness.

The Auto Industry's Real Climate Risk

An article caught my attention last week from the Auto Industry Action Group, entitled “How Climate Action May Impact the Auto Industry.”   Initially, I thought it might tell the story of an industry that has seen significant disaster-related setbacks taking charge to prevent future problems. Actually, it proved to be a polemic about how to protect the industry from climate-related regulations.

Like the finance industry, which gained important business-continuity planning lessons from 9/11 and more recent disasters for example, Goldman Sachs’ stellar disaster-recovery preparations that enabled it to keep its lights and power on in lower Manhattan after Hurricane Sandy). I presumed that automakers were also familiar with risk mitigation, drawing lessons from disruptions to their supply chain after Japan’s devastating 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster.

I bet there are a few leaders in the auto industry who are assessing the realities of the climate-change issue  and are mulling risk evaluations that, for instance, include a look at the relative vulnerability by country of origin of their major suppliers – China Japan, Korea and Mexico.  As of 2011, Japan and Korea possessed a similar level of readiness, and Mexico and Japan’s vulnerability matched, but China was the least prepared and most vulnerable of all of them. (Check out the vulnerability/readiness matrix here to compare countries.)

Others closer to home may be thinking about these risks. The environmental choir, namely The American Sustainable Business Council, published an interesting article about small business risks from climate adaptation.

I can only assume that many car dealerships, which stand at the tail end of the industry’s value chain, consider themselves small businesses. Without climate-adaptation leadership, they could find themselves in trouble.  Among several compelling statistics noted in the article, an estimated 25 percent of small- to-mid-sized businesses don’t reopen after a major disaster, and 57 percent of small businesses have no disaster-recovery plans.

These small businesses represent our American jobs and the backbones of our communities. As climate-related risks grow at home and abroad, we should make it a priority to find the right tools to help all business owners manage for a dramatically changed future.

Three Steps to Better Decision-Making

Three Steps to Better Decision-Making Many tools are available for corporate and development decision-makers to help them plan and devise their business strategies.   Corporate leaders I speak with say they use the Consumer Confidence Index, Corruption Perceptions Index, and Human Development Index among other well-regarded tools, to help relay complex information quickly to their boards of directors and C-Suite peers.  The ND-Global Adaptation Index joins these business barometers to provide quick insights into a country’s climate vulnerability and readiness to adapt.  And since risk experts view climate change as ranking among our principal threats to business, the tool proves to be a timely resource for strategic planning.

As you seek to protect your investments and supply chains while identifying fresh market opportunities, it will pay to absorb how the ND-Global Adaptation Index can assist you.  A quick tour offers three steps (each requiring just a minute) that can generate actionable information about country-level vulnerabilities from climate change and the readiness of countries to absorb and use new investments. By taking the tour, you’ll be able to apply climate savvy to the decisions you make this year.

The Index, free and open source, employs a layered structure, starting with the so-called GAIN ranking

3. The GAIN ranking orders every country by aggregating all measured factors into a single score. It allows a quick look at combined vulnerability and readiness. View the full rankings to find your countries within the index and compare their GAIN ranking with one another.

2. The GAIN Matrix shows the evolution of vulnerability and readiness over the past 15 years. It allows deeper insights into country risk and opportunity.  Add your countries to watch their evolution.

3. The GAIN Country Profiles provide you with all of the data and their sources, organized by specific vulnerability and readiness measures such as water availability, food security and education level.

So if you want to use the Index to size up your supply chain, you can examine a cross-section of the data most germane to your supply chain with just a few clicks on the rankings page. Here’s a snapshot for water, http://index.gain.org/ranking/vulnerability/water for example. Simple, fast, insightful.

Check it out, then tell me what you learn about your business through using this tool.

Climate Adaption: Not Either Or

When I saw MIT Management Professor John Sterman's recent post "Adaptation or Mitigation, lessons from Abolition in the Battle over Climate Policy" I scrambled to almost-20-year-old files to recover notes from a Sloan Systems Dynamics class I audited.  Check out these fascinating MIT System's Dynamics Simulations, created by Sterman for a fun dive into this great analysis tool. Sterman is the expert on system dynamics. However, I think his piece misses a crucial point.  Climate adaptation is about human rights.  Without adapting to climate change, we imperil the lives and livelihoods of billions of people around the globe.  We must multiply our efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.  While doing that, we must ensure that every decision we make about our futures is a climate-adaptive one. If we don’t, we will be ill-informed and ill-equipped about a real risk.  Failing to plan for risks proves to be one of the most dangerous positions we can be in (and borne out by systems dynamics, where a negative feedback loop amplifies itself over and over again).

We are learning lessons every day from the realities of our era:  population growth, migration, urbanization and food insecurity for starters. Climate change has joined these megatrends – and it compounds all of them. Fortunately, more and more tools help us be responsible climate champions. They help to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to build the resiliency and adaptive capacity of the communities where we live and work as well as the supply chain from climate change-related impacts.  That’s the positive feedback loop of systems dynamics we should be employing.  Those who don’t are oblivious to the issues of our time.

Raise a hand if you favor Sloan’s best minds about systems dynamics applying their systems theories to the dynamic behavior of your supply chain and keeping climate change in mind.  I will bank on climate adaptation proving to be both a risk and an opportunity that deserves your closest attention.

A Full-Time Focus (and Idea Exchange) on Corporate Climate Adaptation

A Full-Time Focus (and Idea Exchange) on Corporate Climate Adaptation After five years of focusing peripherally on climate change adaptation, I have thrown myself full time into that passion and pursuit. I’ve joined the Global Adaptation Institute, now known as the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index (more on that shift in a future post).  I’m on a listening tour, of sorts, during my first few months. And I hope we can make the most of the “exchange” part of this blog’s title.  Please send your feedback as I share my beginner’s-mind thinking on our work.

For those of you new to ND-GAIN (see past blogs about it here and here), the following may bring to life the value of this index tool for assisting you in your decision making:

1. ND-GAIN is the world’s only index that measures the vulnerability of each nation to climate change and its readiness to adapt, making it an important tool for preparing for disasters, developing infrastructure, and managing ecosystems around the world.
2. ND-GAIN provides the private sector with the means to gauge adaptation-related opportunities in developing countries. With this ability, the private sector can address the critical needs of vulnerable populations while identifying new markets well-suited to their business model, products or services and investment-risk profiles.
3. ND-GAIN helps policymakers identify the easiest-to-achieve avenues – the low-hanging fruit – for rapidly improving a country’s investment attractiveness to the private sector as well as to motivate and create incentives to employ  the best public policies.
4. ND-GAIN helps international organizations rank their resources based on need and effectiveness

Our mission is to enhance the world’s understanding of the importance of adaptation and facilitate private and public investments in communities most susceptible to climate change.

We envision building resilience to climate change and other global forces as a vital component of sustainable development and market growth.

To accomplish this work, we need your input.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Joyce E. Coffee, managing director at ND-Global Adaptation Index

Urbanization and climate adaptation – how at risk is your supply chain?

Maplecroft, a global risk and strategic consulting firm in the U.K., noted recently that “resilience to major weather ….events is not improving in some of the world’s most important growth markets, leaving large sections of their populations, essential infrastructure and economies at ‘extreme risk.’” That view aligns with that of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index.  The open-source GAIN Index underlines that climate change, population growth, urbanization and resource scarcity jeopardize urbanizing nations.

Why should we care?  Because we care about humanity and should make it a priority to help the most vulnerable adapt.  And because supply chains and investors are exposed to greater risk than anticipated as natural disasters exacerbate other political and societal risks.

Maplecroft describes an interesting contrast.  Its Socio-Economic Resilience Index ranks the U.S. at 169^th and ‘low risk,’ even though it features in the “20 most at-risk countries for exposure to hurricanes, tsunamis, extra-tropical cyclones, storm surges, flooding, volcanic risk and wildfires.“  The Philippine’s socio-economic resilience to natural disasters, meanwhile, ranks No. 65 and ‘high risk’ Because, while it has registered strong economic growth over the last four years, “better disaster resilience has not materialized,” which keeps its index ranking unchanged.

The WEF Global Risks 2013 Eighth Edition posits that the twin threats of economic upheaval and accelerating climate change will collide during the next decade, delaying adaptation efforts while exposing nations to unpredictable financial loss from disasters. It contends that denser cities are more threatened by higher temperatures, exacerbated drought, storms and heat waves, although rural areas certainly are vulnerable from many of these weather-related events.  I do see a big climate risk derived from the ongoing population shift toward coastal zones.

In the CDP Supply Chain Report 2012-13, “Reducing Risk and Driving Business Value,” 70 percent identify a current or future risk related to climate change.  Seventy-three percent say they feel that climate change presents a physical risk to their operations.  More than half of the supply-chain risks identified due to drought and precipitation extremes already are affecting respondents’ operations or are expected to have an effect within the next five years.  According to the survey, the primary impacts will be a reduction/disruption in production capacity and increased operational costs.

Since 2011, the World Economic Forum has been leading a Supply Chain Risk Initiative to consider safeguards for global supply chains.  Among other priorities, it aims to:

• More explicitly assess supply chain and transport risks as part of procurement, management and governance processes
• Develop trusted networks of suppliers, customers, competitors and government focused on risk management
• Improve network risk visibility, through two-way information-sharing and collaborative development of standardized risk assessment and quantification tools
• Improve pre- and post-event communication on systemic disruptions and balance security and facilitation to bring a more balanced public discussion

Combining those with a Ten Point Checklist for Making Corporations Resilient and Asking the Climate Question: How to Create a Climate Adaptation Plan, would deliver a robust execution plan.

So, as you consider your supply chains, you might want to ponder if food shortages, fragile states, variable water supplies and the vagaries of emerging economies have affected it before, since these geopolitical, societal, environmental and economic factors are likely to be stressed simultaneously by climate change in the future.

Especially since these issues are likely to take priority for limited resources, it is worth considering how climate adaptation can be a collateral benefit of actions aimed primarily at nearer-term economic, geopolitical, societal and environmental factors.  If we don’t, twining these threats with accelerating climate change could collide in the next decade, delaying adaptation efforts while exposing companies to unpredictable financial loss from disasters.

National Climate Assessment – getting people to do something about it

A few weeks after a spirited conversation with a client about how best to communicate sustainability, I spied an opportunity at the National Adaptation Forum early this month. The Forum was chock-a-block full of convincing data that emphasize we need to act.  But fewer actors than I would have liked attended; corporate participants were noticeably absent, except for a few private sector consultants, like me. Image from the January, 2013 DRAFT National Climate Assessmen

while the NCA process is designed to be highly inclusive and participatory, we need to ensure that the private sector is, indeed, meaningfully engaged.  The corporate sector has real risk and opportunity related to climate change and they should join the brave folks who have the temerity to ask what can be done to bring the rich resource – the national climate assessment – into the space of action.

(By the way, if you read no further, please note that the National Climate Assessment (NCA) will go to President Obama in December, and you have until the end of this week to comment.  Whoever you are, if you have a stake in your home, your business or your community, the report relates to you, so give it a gander!)

I maintain that the NCA nurtures several super powers:

1.       The power of the prez: Obama can meet with a key group of corporate scions (as he does when seeking assistance with passing key legislation) to share the national climate assessment and ask them to relate and discuss their own adaptation actions and challenges.

2.       The power of story:  There are millions of companies in America.  Climate change already has affected countless numbers of them.   What are they and other companies with foresight doing to adapt?  A nonfederal convener as impartial and neutral as Facebook could offer a cloud on which corporate adaptation stories could reside, with the NCA serving as a foundation.  For each chapter – health, agriculture, forestry, etc…..we could create a wiki of examples to inspire and cajole others to action.

3.       The power of accountability: Somewhere between the big donor and the common man sits the 300-plus U.S. companies that are part of the Carbon Disclosure Project or the more than 4,000 companies from 60 countries that report through the Global Reporting Initiative.  These companies are embracing accountability as a way to earn and burnish their license to lead. We must strongly encourage CDP and GRI to create a community of climate adaptation leaders by giving credence to adaptation.

The Carbon Disclosure Project has cast a spotlight on supply-chain engagements.  How about illuminating climate adaptation next?

In the meantime, check out NCAnet, a network of organizations working with the NCA to engage producers and users of assessment information across the United States.  Perhaps a group you collaborate with has already joined.  Or perhaps you can be the spark to ignite engagement.

Job Posting: Climate Adaptation Expert?

I am noticing something remarkable in arguably the most important job category: elected officials. Might we see a 180-degree shift in the qualifications for this unusual job category?  In 2010, six-term South Carolina Republican Bob Inglis lost his House seat because he believed in human-caused climate change. Now we have Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who gets it, as do some former “flat earth” proponents. (Even Charles and David Koch, the oil tycoons who for years have bankrolled climate-change deniers, may be changing their tune since a study on earth surface temperatures, that they financed, in part found that global warming is occurring and humans have played a role in it.)

The way Christie ably managed the Hurricane Sandy climate crisis in his state has provided cover for politicians of all political persuasions to claim leadership in this area.  A good thing too, since  Yale Project on Climate Change Communication recently reported that 58 percent of registered voters consider global warming when determining for whom to vote.

Those numbers are for the U.S., but it appears to be true elsewhere. Greenland just elected a new prime minister, Aleqa Hammond, whose primary strength over the incumbent was her handling of mineral and metal rights in those growing areas of Greenland no longer covered by ice.  Thus, that election was settled over an already-changed climate.

Business may be a bit closer to making these choices, too. CDP Supply Chain Report 2012-13,  73 percent of surveyed companies  say they feel that climate change presents a physical risk to their operations. Still, fully 44 percent of CEOs in the survey acknowledged that climate change isn’t a significant item on their agendas.

Perhaps Greenbiz’ State of Green Business 2013 addresses it best when it asks (page 13) “at what point will climate, extreme weather and resource constraints be similarly seen as a patent threat that requires changes to the design and operation of our businesses and supply chains?  What will be the dramatic event(s) that provide the tipping point?  How much disruption and inconvenience will the public be willing to tolerate?”

So, let’s see if the hot new job of the 2020s will be Corporate Climate Research and Adaptation Strategic Advisor.   For thoughts on what that job entails, see Ten Point Checklist for Making Corporations Resilient and Asking the Climate Question: How to Create a Climate Adaptation Plan.

Adapt, media, we need you!

I’m sure you’ve noticed, as I have, the pick up in media reporting on climate change whenever a weather-related disaster occurs, especially around major events such as Hurricane Sandy, the prolonged Texas droughts and the Colorado wildfires.  And reporters are coming from a wide variety of beats, including politics, community affairs and real estate.  That diversity of story approaches is a dream come true for communications professionals such as I.  I am eager to see more proactive climate-change coverage, not just that in response to a crisis. That encouraging development is why I’m so bummed – and disturbed – to see the demise of the environmental desk at some of the top news outlets in the U.S.  This is troublesome because objective third-party reporting helps us understand the issues, the politics that often surround them, and the solutions to these precarious challenges. We need that coverage, perhaps even more than we need the reporting that accompanies a weather-related emergency.

What does it reflect that the NYTimes is dismantling its environment desk of seven reporters and two editors and placing them elsewhere, while at the same time dropping its Green Blog?  Why is the Washington Post reassigning its lead climate reporter off the environmental beat? They’re not alone. Four years ago, CNN dropped its environmental team and the network’s environmental coverage today is weaker. NBC slashed its staff of environmental reporters in 2008 – in the middle of Green Week!

Have the continual readership studies that news shops take in today’s fiercely competitive media world revealed that readers and listeners tune out on such coverage? Are other beats suddenly becoming more newsworthy and requiring additional resources?  I would like to know.  I also would love to ask veteran Pulitzer Prize judges whether they see fewer entries of investigative stories or series on environmental issues.

We’ve seen environmental-reporting cycles before. But why is this happening again at a time when Congress, the administration and corporate leaders are acknowledging climate change and the damages it’s triggering? As for consumers, surveys certainly indicate they are interested in environmental issues and what companies are doing to combat greenhouse gases and other pollutants. So what gives?

I seriously doubt that Mother Jones can go it alone on the environmental front within the print media, along with respected bloggers such as Marc Gunther and Aman Singh to pick up the slack.

In less than a week, a sell-out crowd will converge at the National Adaptation Forum in Denver.  Government, corporate and academic voices will debate, provoke and solve.  It’s a frame up for the media to get ahead of climate adaptation or, if they would prefer to think about it in their market’s terms, the next storm that undoubtedly will grace their websites’ home pages in the next 12 months.

I, for one, am going to look with interest at how many journalists – environmental specialists and those who aren’t – will attend the Forum. It will serve as another litmus test of the media’s genuine interest in covering issues that will determine if our planet withstands what the experts maintain lies ahead on climate change.

One more thing: Let’s give a shout out to a kickstarter-type campaign to pay for climate journalists. And let’s all ante up to help us adapt! Because what are the consequences when media interest evaporates as our environment evaporates?

The Next Silk Route

Seeing this map of the melting Arctic Sea and subsequent shipping routes in the Economist a few weeks ago startled me.  I was programmed to think of voyages and conquests by the Economist’s cover picture of a ruddy Viking. And this triggered, at least for me, a profound reality: Everything we know about shipping is about to change because of climate change.

Just hearing that certainty alone sends an Arctic chill down my spine.  I’m not ready to give up that icy white at the top of my son’s globe. Or all the mystery, epoch history, science and beauty locked up there simply to buy get cheaper toys, clothes, solar panel parts, fish protein, energy and the list goes on and on.

But ready or not, the draft National Climate Assessment suggests we already are registering a decrease in sea ice, snow cover and glaciers, as well as an increase in ocean temperatures. Indeed, reflecting the physics of glaciers, they are retreating faster than most models originally had predicted.

So the climate has created an opportunity for this era’s Genghis Khan to open up trade routes that were a mere child’s dream of racing boats across a plastic globe only a few years ago.  I’m heartened to see that a multinational collaboration is taking the lead.  The Arctic Council comprises adjacent countries: the United States, Canada, Denmark (representing Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden.  Corporations are chomping at the bit for the new shipping, fishing and extractives possibilities and a responsible policy will help to ensure safe handling.

Time has given the Vikings and Genghis Khan a romantic and heroic reputation as adventurers. Let’s hope the heroism of this new era of profound geologic change leads to two developments: the halt of other climate events through employing greenhouse gas mitigation and a careful and considerate approach to the use of our new geographical landscape.

North America -In the Eye of the Storm

As the East Coast grapples with the dire aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, a new study by Munich Re reveals that weather-related extreme events have most affected North America in recent decades. Research by the German reinsurer of 30,000 records of natural catastrophes showed such disasters have risen five-fold in North America over the last 30 years. For me, the Munich Re report, “Severe weather in North America," simply becomes the most recent reminder that climate adaptation must be a corporate priority. The report notes that the five-fold increase in weather-related losses in North America the past three decades compares with an increase factor of 4 in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, 2 in Europe and 1.5 in South America.  It also explains:

Anthropogenic climate change is believed to contribute to this trend, though it influences various perils in different ways. Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events and, in the long run, most probably also tropical cyclone intensity.

Past exchanges on this blog have been about extreme heat and precipitation, but perhaps the most germane for the moment is our discussion about Corporate Learning from Past Disaster.

It’s too soon to tell if Sandy has had a disproportionate impact on the private sector, but it’s likely that flood damage will net out a major cost to New York City’s businesses, even as Mayor Bloomberg and city officials consider infrastructure improvements to shore up against future storms.

Businesses newly committed to climate adaptation will find resources from peers with their own plans. They also may find good tools from government-backed organizations that discuss what climate adaptation looks like and, importantly, how to create an institutional commitment to climate adaptation.

Two that I especially like are:

“Private Sector Engagement in Adaptation to Climate Change,” a new report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

Making Cities Resilient:  My City is Getting Ready a guide for the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, which I tweaked for a corporate audience here.

It’s likely the storm will prod corporate risk managers and business-continuity planning managers to take stock and begin instituting telecommuting policies, diversifying their supplier chain to other geographies and advising the small businesses upon which they rely about how to develop a resiliency or adaptation plan.

As Hurricane Sandy galvanizes us to examine more closely our climate adaptations, I’m inspired that you, readers, are taking leadership.

Who says Carbon? Who says Tax?

I eagerly anticipate Election Day, but I know I can’t expect any candidate – except, perhaps, Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington State (thank you, Congressman) to speak of a carbon tax. True, neither carbon nor tax will get votes.  And yet, nearly three-quarters of WSJ.com readers voting in an online poll say they’re ready for a carbon tax, an idea debated in a companion article,  “Should there be a price on carbon-dioxide emissions?”

While both cap and trade and carbon taxes give polluters a financial incentive to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, carbon taxes provide certainty regarding emission prices. And I think the market is seeking certainty as we struggle out of the Great Recession. In spite of the redistribution of assets from industry to government that defines taxes, several large players in the energy space have indicated carbon tax (versus a cap-and-trade market) would be preferable.

Somewhere between Hurricane Katrina, which was the first public climate event in the U.S., and the sound of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill (AKA the American Clean Energy and Security Act) hitting the recycling bin, it became  verboten to mention a carbon tax.  As a team of us wrote Chicago’s Climate Action Plan in 2008, we tussled with mentioning that a carbon tax would be among the options Chicago would support at the Federal level and ultimately elected not too.

Times have changed, and 78 percent of investors polled by Bloomberg BNA now recognize that climate change threatens the environment. The majority notes that profits wouldn’t be affected by climate change laws. Since, fracking aside, the price of energy is expected to continue to rise as more countries industrialize and add to the fuel-supply demand, a carbon tax could create a market incentive for conservation, while putting such renewable energy sources as wind, solar and geothermal on a more competitive footing and contributing resources to resiliency efforts.

As a native of Boulder, Colo., I’m thrilled that the city has had a carbon tax, a tax on electricity consumption with deductions for renewables, for the last six years. Yet, this one market mechanism I believe, works better on a national scale.  For an action plan, I’d recommend the next administration invite climate-change scientist James Hansen to the White House with several key representatives and congressman and get down to making this a reality as our economy continues to rebound.  Inviting input from a European, South African or Asian leader who already has taken this bold step might provide lessons learned that could help us assure an easier path.

Climate Change Communications

Here are some reflections on the current state of climate change communications from my participation in a September roundtable hosted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research with participation from McKinsey, SustainAbility, Cater Communications Climate Communication and Climate Nexus, among others: Cultural norms matter, may be playing a major role in how we act about climate.  Two channels exist for science communication – information driven and cultural driven. It turns out that in order to influence climate actors, addressing climate actions as a personal choice that others in our community are making works better than honing in on the science information.  Yale’s cultural cognition project is loaded with interesting research about this, including a paper on Why We are Poles Apart on Climate Change.  So

As a climate actor, I may be frustrated that scientific evidence does not equate to climate leadership.  But, as a communications professional, I appreciate that my clients may be more compelled to act by what their peers and competitors are doing than by evidence of the benefits of those action to their business.

Language matters in communicating about climate change. Communicating the Science of Climate Change offers some great suggestions about science communications that apply to other complex information, too:

• Start with what we know, rather than with what we don’t.
• Use language the public understands, not necessarily the language of a particular industry.
• Consider community, political and ideological frames for storytelling to inspire action. A local frame proves particularly helpful.  So the Colorado fires, Texas drought, and Illinois flooding all provide great entrepoints for helping people see that climate change is having an impact on THEM, not just on the earth

Earth the Operators Manual

Video matters, too, in relating and relaying what is sparking climate change.  On reflection, the most memorable part of the two day roundtable was an introduction to Earth the Operators Manual, and particularly its clever “How to Talk to An Ostrich” with tips on how to engage folks who stick their head in the sand about climate.  In the spot called: Who says CO2 heats things up?"  they note it was the US Air Force that studied CO2 most carefully: it's heat-trapping properties could interfere with heat-seeking missiles. This entire video effort inspires me to believe in the value of climate change communications as a means to cause climate action.

What do you think is the most effective climate change communication you’ve seen/heard recently?

Is Geoengineering Climate Adaptation?

On the first anniversary of my blog, I find it remarkable that I have yet to mention Geoengineering.  It’s been satisfying to focus on corporate climate adaptation as it relates to investors, the insurance industry, CEO communications in a crisis and the how tos of a corporate climate adaptation plan, among other topics. But today, I’m thinking beyond the limits of corporate America to a global adaptation: geoengineering – the deliberate modification of a planet's environment by the addition or subtraction of a resource or energy input on a massive scale.  

Thanks to Marc Gunther, who created the most interesting elements of this April’s Fortune Brainstorm Green, a geoengineering discussion with Harvard physicist and entrepreneur David Keith, I was reminded of the timeliness of this important topic.   Among other things, Dr. Keith is a proponent of developing industrial scale technologies for capturing carbon dioxide from the air.  May’s New Yorker article The Climate Fixers by Michael Specter offered a layperson’s perspective.  Then in June EDF’S Newsletter, EDF initiates global conversation on geoengineering, and USA Today Dan Vergano’s, Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming? , focused my attention on the issue again. While I may think geoengineering should stop at cloud seeding to protect the Olympics, it seems only a matter of time before we apply geoengineering at a bigger scale.  So I ask:

1. Who gets to test this big idea?
2. What is the size of the pilot? Local, regional, national or global scale?
3. When do we start the experiment? Is now the right time, before the oceans acidify and the glaciers melt irreversibly (in this millennium)?
4. Can we control these experiments? Who is to say a storm or drought that occurs after them is not due to some other force? How will we know that consequences are due to geoengineering?
5. Who pays?  Some claim the costs are declining, but can international bodies prioritize the funds, and should they be the bank?
6. How shall we feel when a country or sector at extreme risk from climate change takes matters into its own hands?
7. Who should be the winners and the losers? Is it better or worst that we cannot necessarily predict the outcome?    Do emerging economies get a break, or do the poor remain at greatest risk?

I wish I could devote more time to studying the science, technologies, engineering – as well as politics and international government of this issue. For now, I content myself with these questions.

Institutional investor vs. individual investor – who is the climate adaptation actor?

Calvert Investments, CERES and Oxfam have just released a splendid guide for companies and investors dealing with disclosure and management of climate impacts entitled “Physical Risks from Climate Change.” I had the pleasure of speaking recently on a panel with Matthew Alsted, Calvert’s vice president of Channel Marketing and Brand Strategy at the LOHAS Forum 2012. He noted that, 50 years ago, individual households owned an estimated two-thirds to three- quarters of publicly traded stocks (U.S.) whereas institutional investors held the balance. Today that ratio has flipped.  This shift is remarkable and reminds me how much we must rely on the good minds at places such as Fidelity and Vanguard (I invest in both mutual fund houses) to encourage corporations to make good climate adaptation decisions.

The guide includes sets of key questions for different sectors that should be required reading for fund managers. They, in particular, should study them since passing along risk decisions to companies isn’t sufficient anymore, in my opinion.  I believe mutual fund investors have an important role in magnifying the opportunities and minimizing the risks of climate change.  As they have with corporate-governance issues, such as favoring the splitting of the chairman and CEO roles, perhaps financial houses could serve as part of the market solution to climate change by expecting responsible climate-risk avoidance.

Why are investors important?  Because from their questioning and probing, they help make climate adaptation material to companies.  The CERES/Calvert/Oxfam report makes clear that information related to long-term climate risks aren’t mandatory disclosures since these long-term risks aren’t deemed material to investors interested in the short term.  Regrettably, as the Colorado fires illustrate, the increase in adverse climate impacts will have a material effect on companies’ assets and operations.

ISC Corporate Services  “Disclosing Climate Risks: How 100 Companies are Responding to New SEC Guidelines” indicates that investors concerned about physical climate risk have actively pursued disclosure from the companies in which they invest and are using tools that track and evaluate companies’ climate-risk disclosures.

That’s encouraging!  I’ll be looking for ways to help more companies do the same.

Rio+20 and Corporate Climate-Adaptation Optimism

There’s pessimism aplenty leading up to Rio+20 with headlines such as these: “Rio +20 Earth Summit Could Collapse” and U.N. starts pre-conference talks in a hole. But I’m going Pollyannaish positive on climate adaptation. So much differs from that first Rio Earth Summit. Some would contend this year’s conference profoundly lacks momentum about environmental protection.  I believe the most acute change reflects engagement of the private sector in both dialogue and solutions.

In 1992, Rio launched truly new and innovative global policy processes.  The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFPCC) ranked among the best. Rio then also began an unprecedented experiment in global environmental cooperation.

Brief 8 – Reducing Disaster Risk and Building Resilience

What’s unfortunate about Rio 2012 is that droughts and food security; flash floods and household destruction; and strong hurricanes and economic loss are on the agenda. Why? Because it indicates that big climate-driven natural hazards already are having a striking impact on all of us, including the corporate world.  Corporate, government and community climate action to prevent climate risks are still primary priorities for us all.  And today’s climate-related risks means that while international commitments in the area of disaster risk-reduction and resilience building may emerge from Rio+20, the understanding will certainly grow by corporations of the need to reduce their risk and increase their resilience.

Many maintain that the United Nations has little to show for all of its efforts over the last 20 years.  But I’m glad it opened the door to other solution providers.  With IPCC and UNFPCC intelligence and corporate moxie, perhaps we will mitigate the risk and build the resilience that our future depends upon.

As Mark Way, director of sustainability and political risk management at Swiss Re America Holding Corporation, sees it: “Rio+20 will act as a further reminder, if one is really necessary, of the urgent need for a comprehensive global response to climate change, one which reduces emissions and increases resilience to severe weather.”  I’m bullish that his prediction will spark the momentum we need in the corporate sector.  How about you?

It’s Time for NATO to Look to the Future Climate

Soon after he became NATO Secretary General in December 2009, Anders Fogh Rasmussen summed up the military alliance’s approach to dealing with the security implications of climate change in three words: “consultation, adaptation, and operation.” Appearing on a panel at a United Nations’ conference on climate change, Rasmussen maintained that the organization has “a real edge” to help tackle any such challenges. Since then, Rasmussen and NATO ministers have shown general disinterest in the subject. His 2011 annual report didn’t mention climate at all. And a two-day NATO science workshop in late April last year on climate change drew mostly academics and little notice. During the upcoming summit in Chicago on May 20-21, NATO heads of state and government will discuss many issues, but climate isn’t expected to be one of them.

What an oversight. Especially since Rasmussen’s predecessor, in a June 2008 speech addressing the future of the Alliance, called on NATO to prepare for a period of global insecurity sparked by climate change. Frankly, it’s time for Rasmussen and the Alliance to take proactive steps toward preparation. That means preparing a new type of “army”—recruits who include climatologists, epidemiologists, geologists, agricultural scientists, foresters, hydrologists, and even cultural historians.

Why? Because climate change is real. Not-so-subtle changes already are afoot on our planet from climate shifts, including extreme natural storms and disasters, higher temperatures, and rising ocean levels. It’s just a matter of time before peoples start squabbling—and worse—over scarce water, food, or other vital resources triggered by mutable climate conditions.

It’s happened before. A largely agrarian period in Europe known as the Little Ice Age (1560-1660) sparked the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) among other armed conflicts.  Fought throughout Europe, it was the longest continuous war in modern history, and a recent study, led by geographer David Zhang of the University of Hong Kong, contends that climate change played a major role. Cooler periods in China and the resulting scarcity of resources over the past millennium are also closely linked with a higher frequency of wars, according to Chinese researchers.

Dr. Zhang believes extreme climate events—both hot and cold—could have a disastrous effect on the earth’s ecosystem and may trigger social, economic, and political upheaval—possibly even war. The U.S. National Intelligence Council even evaluated the topic in 2008. Recently, the Mother Nature Network identified seven places where climate change could trigger conflict: Southern Africa, Bangladesh, Western China, Kashmir, the Sahel region of Africa, Central Asia, and Lake Victoria in Africa.  And consider the Maldives, the Indian Ocean archipelago that is disappearing into the water as sea levels rise. Already, Maldives’ president says the government is putting aside income from the annual billion-dollar tourism trade to buy land elsewhere, should the worst happen.

Naysayers, of course, will scorn such talk, especially if they believe climate change is a myth. Still, it was retired U.S. military leaders who asserted in an April 2007 paper on North American climate change that global-warming water problems—either too little or too much—will make poor, unstable parts of the world even more prone to armed conflict, acts of terrorism, and the need for international intervention.

To be sure, the connection between warming and war is extremely complex. But it still might serve NATO well to step up its preparations for when sensitive situations—which may not be far away—arise from changes in climate. NATO offers solutions, and climate change doesn’t have one. It would seem to be a natural shift in NATO priorities as European military conflicts ease.

NATO can play an especially critical role in helping develop methods and tactics to adapt to changing climate conditions and mitigate future risks. The facts bear it out: Adaptive societies face fewer conflicts. So by assuming a much larger role now in preparing for climate change adaptation, NATO could serve to increase social, economic, and environmental resiliency and lessen the risk of conflict.

Are you taking note, Secretary General Rasmussen?

What Happens in Vegas Can’t Stay in Vegas: Strategies for Climate Adaption by Water Utilities

As climate change becomes more extreme, the way we collect water for our utilities from the natural water supply will change.  Already, with less snow pack in mountains, utilities that capture their water supply from gradual snow melt are impacted by changing patterns of precipitation. I spoke recently with Mary Ann Dickinson, president of the Chicago-based global non-profit Alliance for Water Efficiency that commits to the efficient and sustainable use of water. (Disclosure: I am a member and served as a director.)   It advocates for water-efficient products and programs and provides information and assistance on water-conservation efforts.  Mary Ann and I discussed climate change and the North American water supply.

These utilities and companies can take their cue from Las Vegas, which Mary Ann praises as an excellent example of adapting to climate change when it comes to water.  Substantial population growth there moved Las Vegas’ water source long ago to snow pack melt water contained by Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir in maximum water capacity. It’s located on the Colorado River about 30 miles southeast of the city.

Consider:

• Las Vegas recycles 94 percent of the water that goes down drains. It's treated and returned to Lake Mead, Nev., via the Las Vegas Wash, an “urban” river. This flow of water exists because of the urban population in Southern Nevada. It comprises urban runoff, shallow groundwater, reclaimed water and stormwater.
• Recycling water is important to the city because it earns so-called “Return Flow Credits” for water pumped back to Lake Mead. For every gallon the city returns to the lake, it can withdraw one gallon.
• Recycled water comprises 40 percent of Las Vegas’ water resources.
• Water features on The Strip recycle all their water, so the amount consumed essentially is water lost to evaporation.
• Most Las Vegas golf courses irrigate with recycled water that’s been treated but not returned to Lake Mead.

Understandably, Las Vegas is parsimonious about water since one of its major water intakes could be above the water level of Lake Mead within a few years.  The water level has been dropping rapidly, and a 50-50 chance exists that Lake Mead will go dry by 2021.

Las Vegas exemplifies those cities where utilities’ major adaptation will be locating water supplies when their primary water sources aren’t available any longer.  Utilities that have faced this predicament have turned to groundwater, water recycling, reducing usage and ensuring that less used water ends up in a salt source, where it is unrecoverable (except by evapotranspiration).

It’s rare, however, for a utility to think long term and consider these options as part of a climate-adapted scenario. Traditionally, utilities have built and managed fixed infrastructure based on fixed resources.

Mary Ann offers these tips for climate adaption in water utilities:

1. Consider your options: Increase the balance of the ways you get water in your portfolio by adopting a set of options that includes recycling and water conservation
2. Raise prices to shake up complacency: Rates haven’t kept pace with the price of maintaining aging and expanding infrastructure.  You need to engage in serious conversations with your water purchasers about how, over time, these infrastructure issues must be resolved. This means counseling that water prices must reflect the future and not just current reality.
3. Acknowledge the repercussions of water conservation: Utilities blame water conservation efforts by consumers for their headaches. That’s because under current pricing, less water used by consumers translates into less revenue. Regulators need to allow utilities to move to service modality from unit block pricing.  Even with growth, though, utilities aren’t seeing demand increase. So they’re not increasing revenue because water usage per capita has decreased with codes, standards and conservation.
4. Partner with large consumers. Reach out to large water users. Help those industrial users to become positive examples in their community in terms of water conservation. Business loves recognition for its good work.

As Mary Ann noted, more and more communities and utilities are going to have to grapple with these issues so they might begin now.  That way, they have better odds of succeeding – like Las Vegas!

Green Buildings and Climate Adaptation

I’ve just discovered a nifty resource tailored to the corporate sector’s climate adaptation leadership, and I must share it.  It’s an appendix!  I’m all about capturing the information I need from a good executive summary, but anyone looking to  fashion a new building for their enterprise should take 20 minutes to skim Appendix C: Adaptation Strategies, within the report “Green Building and Climate Resilience,“ co-sponsored by the U.S. Green Building Council.

The report itself deserves a small celebration. Perhaps we’re witnessing an enhanced universal understanding of climate adaptation’s importance when the nation’s premier sustainable-built environment guide takes the issue on.

The report doesn’t directly address if some geographies and land uses will prove inadequate sites for their current land use because of anticipated climate-change impacts. These influences could be sea-level rise; increased frequency and intensity of flooding; pronounced stress on freshwater sources; and elevated incidences of wildfires. But the report does offer excellent recommendations for climate adaptation in the built environment.  (It’s arguable, for instance, that parts of Florida shouldn’t be sites for more shoreline development and that the arid Southwest shouldn’t be considered for high-water intensity land uses.)

Here are just a few considerations to pique your interest, with text from the report itself:

Prevent Flame/Ember Entry:  Eliminating exposed vents, installing oversized vents with mesh screens and placing vents in locations away from other buildings or vegetation may help to prevent ignition or damage during a wildfire.

Elevated First Floor: If it is not possible to build outside of a flood plain or a storm surge zone, the first floor of the building should be elevated well above the projected base flood elevation or storm surge height.  Elevating the structure will help to prevent damage during a flood from inundation, high velocity water, erosion, sedimentation and flood-borne debris.  

High Efficiency Egress Lighting: Energy-efficient lighting, including fluorescent lighting and LED lighting, lasts longer in exist signage and requires less amp-hours to run from a battery in the event of a power outage.

Sewage Backflow Preventer: A sewage backflow preventer allows wastewater to flow out in one direction but restricts the flow from reversing back into a building.  Access to sewer pipe should be incorporated outside of the building to allow easier access for cleanout in the event of a backup.

Areas of Refuge: Areas of refuge typically are designed to respond only to fires, but as the risk of sever precipitation and flooding increases, areas on the upper floors of buildings may need to be designated as hardened areas to protect occupants until help arrives.

Granted, many of these recommendations rely on a new skill set for building-design professionals, especially project engineers.  For instance, rather than referring to a table defining 5, 10, 30 and 100-year storm events that reflect the analysis of historic weather events that the engineer hasn’t ever done, design professionals now will analyze downscaled climate data* and make their own assumptions about storm events’ impacts on the built form.  I’m confident were up to the challenge.

Framing Climate Adaptation Messages for Corporate Action

When addressing climate adaptation, it could prove advantageous to frame your messaging in ways other than strictly using climate change as the backdrop.  Recent studies show that framing such messaging under the clean energy or public health heading resonates well with most audiences. Opportunities certainly arise for using public health as the direction for addressing such issues as heat stress from increased urban heat-island effects, water-borne illnesses from flooding and the change of ranges for vector-borne disease as they relate to morbidity and mortality.

All of this leads to the real opportunities for messaging about climate: during and just after a local climate-related event.  When people view climate change as being harmful to their business, their community and their families, they are more likely to take action to adapt.  They work to “avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable,” asserts climate adaptation maven Rosina Bierbaum.

Speaking of mavens, those of us in the business of communicating should always remember Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point” helpful categorizations of folks:

• Messengers, he maintains, are socially connected people
• Mavens are those offering new information or perspectives, and
• Salespeople are persuaders

For the corporate sector to be climate adaptive, we need all three types.