Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.
Wählen Sie Textabschnitte aus um mit Künstlicher Intelligenz passenden Patente zu finden.
powered by
Markieren Sie Textabschnitte, um KI-gestützt weitere passende Inhalte zu finden.
powered by
Abstract
Environmentally focused investors often consider climate risks (Porritt, The world in context: Beyond the business case for sustainable development. Cambridge: HRH The Prince of Wales’ Business and the Environment Programme, Cambridge Programme for Industry, 2001, Stern, Stern review executive summary. London: New Economics Foundation, 2006); however, potential liabilities for damages from extreme weather events due to emissions from carbon-intensive sectors present risks that may not be reflected in current share prices (Krosinsky, Robins, & Viederman, Evolutions in sustainable investing: Strategies, funds and thought leadership. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2012). Given the devastation of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, it is worth asking: how close are we to some companies or sectors being held liable, at least partially, for their activities around emissions? The answer may be that this is closer than many expect. The evolving field of extreme weather event attribution serves as a good example of how new science can raise important thought-provoking questions regarding the appropriate actions of both investors and companies under a changing climate and answer them with increasing confidence.
In recent articles, Rayer and Millar (Investing in extreme weather conditions. Citywire Wealth Manager (429), 36, 2018a; Hurricanes hit company share prices. Citywire New Model Adviser (596), 18, 2018b; Physics World, 31(8), 17, 2018c) estimated that the top seven carbon-emitting publicly listed companies, under a hypothetical climate liability regime, might increasingly see around 1–2% losses on their market capitalisations (or share prices) from North Atlantic hurricane seasons. This chapter gives a comprehensive exposition of how that estimate was arrived at, as well as clarifying how it was quantified. Related aspects from a physical point of view are provided, with an associated general overview of the current state of the related science of climate change, alongside a focus on extreme weather events.
Anzeige
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.
Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions that originate from sources that are owned and controlled by a company, for example, fuel used in company vehicles. Scope 2 emissions are indirect, resulting from energy used by a company, including electricity, steam, heating and cooling. This could include, for example, electricity purchased by a company from an external supplier. Scope 3 emissions cover all indirect emissions arising due to company activities. Scope 3 emissions include upstream and downstream value chain emissions. Scope 3 emissions include those of suppliers and customers using companies’ products.
If we denote the fossil fuel industry as emitting F tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2015, then F = 0.91G, where G was global industrial emissions. Further, F = 0.7A, where A was all anthropogenic emissions. Equating 0.91G = 0.7A, thus G = (0.7/0.91)A = 0.77A. So around 77% of anthropogenic emissions were industrial, meaning that 23% were non-industrial.
Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Romans in the battle of Asculum in 280 BC, but suffered such heavy losses that ultimately his campaign failed. Thus, he “won the battle, but lost the war”.