Search Climate Insights Directory

The Union of Concerned Scientists developed a scorecard to assess eight major fossil fuel companies—including Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, CONSOL Energy, and Arch Coal—on their climate responsibility. The methodology employs 30 metrics across four areas: renouncing disinformation, planning for a carbon-free world, supporting effective climate policies, and disclosing climate risks. The assessment focuses on the period from January 2015 to May 2016, utilizing public filings, corporate reports, and third-party data. Notably, the document states that no assessed companies met the standard required to be scored on the execution of their carbon-reduction plans.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) developed a scoring system to evaluate 13 large companies across the retail, fast food, and manufacturing sectors that source beef from South America. The methodology uses a 100-point scale across five categories: ambition of deforestation-free commitment, time-bound implementation plans, compliance, transparency, and traceability, monitoring, and verification. Scoring is based on official company sources and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) reports, with a specific emphasis on whether commitments cover all cattle products and are global in scope.

The World Resources Institute developed Global Forest Watch Water (GFW Water) to provide a public database and mapping tool for 230 major global watersheds. The tool assesses watershed health by scoring four primary risks—recent forest loss, historical forest loss, erosion, and fire—within the context of baseline water stress. It aims to support downstream beneficiaries, financing institutions, and researchers in implementing natural infrastructure, such as forest protection and restoration, to enhance water security and quality. The document details the underlying hydrologic science, the specific spatial data sets used (including Landsat imagery and the RUSLE erosion model), and the normalization process used to generate risk scores from 1 to 5.

The document details the technical approach used by the Union of Concerned Scientists to evaluate coastal flooding risks for US military bases. It describes the use of the NOAA SLOSH model for storm surge, the NOAA Inundation Analysis tool for tidal flooding, and Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) levels for permanent inundation. The analysis utilizes localized sea level rise projections for 2050, 2070, and 2100 based on the 2013 National Climate Assessment. Key caveats include the exclusion of rainfall-induced flooding, the use of worst-case 'Maximum of the Maximum' storm surge scenarios, and the fact that the study provides illustrative snapshots rather than a comprehensive risk assessment of all bases.

The document outlines the use of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) to model the impact of the Clean Power Plan and federal tax credits. It specifies adjustments made to standard EIA cost and performance assumptions for various energy technologies, including wind, solar, coal, and nuclear, and defines three primary analysis scenarios: a Reference Case, a Clean Energy Transition Case, and a Clean Power Plan Only Case.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) utilized the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) to assess the Clean Power Plan. The analysis incorporates modified cost and performance assumptions for various energy technologies, including a rejection of EIA 'learning' curves for mature technologies and specific adjustments for nuclear, coal, and renewables. The study compares four scenarios: a Reference Case, a CPP National Trading Case, a CPP No Trading Case, and a 'Clean Path' Case involving enhanced state-level policies in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

The document provides a technical appendix describing the life cycle emissions modeling for urban buses in California, comparing diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), hydrogen fuel cell, and battery electric options. It details modifications to the CA-GREET 2.0 and Vision 2.0 models to better reflect California-specific fuel pathways and electricity grid mixes. Key findings include the significant reduction of global warming emissions when using 100% renewable energy for electric buses and the role of biomass and coal in the grid's particulate matter emissions. The analysis also examines the impact of low-carbon biofuels and low-NOx engines on overall emissions profiles.

WWF and the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) are implementing a standardized process to create freshwater basin report cards. These tools synthesize complex data into accessible grades to empower stakeholders and improve management. The process involves six steps: stakeholder engagement, indicator selection, threshold definition, scoring, communication, and score improvement. A 2016 case study of Colombia’s Orinoco River Basin, which received a B-minus grade, demonstrates the model's application in addressing threats like land-use change and extractive industries.

The document outlines the accounting framework for Landscape 2015, defining climate finance as capital flows for low-carbon and climate-resilient development. It specifies the inclusion of mitigation and adaptation finance, the types of financial instruments tracked, and the distinction between public and private finance. The methodology details the data sources used, such as BNEF and OECD, and provides a comprehensive sectoral breakdown for classifying mitigation and adaptation activities. It also lists the Development Finance Institutions and Climate Funds covered, and defines the regional classifications for the destinations of these financial flows.

The document details a screening methodology to assess the joint vulnerability of 35 U.S. coastal counties by combining socioeconomic data and climate projections. It utilizes a linear scaling technique to normalize variables—including per-capita income, poverty rates, and projected sea level rise—into composite risk indicators. The analysis incorporates historical damage data from SHELDUS and storm surge modeling for specific case studies to identify areas of high vulnerability.

The EV Emissions Tool calculates CO2e emissions for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles in the US by combining vehicle efficiency data from the EPA with regional electricity grid emissions data from eGrid and the GREET model. It accounts for both direct and indirect emissions, including fuel production and transport, but excludes emissions from vehicle manufacturing and disposal. The tool uses a 'sales-weighted' approach for national averages based on 2016-2021 registration and sales data.

The document details the methodology for the Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas Global Maps 2.1, which updates the 2013 version by incorporating GLDAS-2 NOAH v. 3.3 runoff data. It outlines 12 indicators categorized into physical risk (quantity and quality) and regulatory and reputational risk. The framework utilizes a combination of public domain data, literature reviews, and original datasets to estimate water availability and use at the hydrological catchment scale. Key metrics include baseline water stress, inter-annual and seasonal variability, flood and drought severity, and groundwater stress, alongside socio-economic indicators like media coverage and access to water.

The document details the calculations used to estimate the CO2-equivalent emissions resulting from natural gas leakage in the United States. Based on 2012 production data and a leakage range of 1% to 9%, the analysis converts methane volume to mass and then to CO2 equivalents, using a potency factor of 34. These results are then compared to the annual emissions of typical 600-megawatt coal power plants to illustrate the climate risk.

The document outlines the technical approach used by the Union of Concerned Scientists to analyze climate risks at specific refineries owned by Valero, Phillips 66, Exxon Mobil, Marathon Petroleum, and Chevron. It details the data sources for refinery capacity and boundaries, the sea level rise projections based on the IPCC's RCP 4.5 scenario, and the use of the National Weather Service's SLOSH model to simulate storm surge from Category 1–5 hurricanes. Additionally, it explains the criteria used to score company disclosures of physical climate risks based on SEC filings and Ceres methodology.

The report outlines a methodology for linking climate hazards to economic outcomes for transportation assets. It details a taxonomy of direct and indirect costs, explores the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and economic impact analysis, and proposes a six-step process for climate risk assessment. The framework emphasizes the need to monetize asset decay and service disruptions to justify investments in infrastructure resilience.

The document describes a methodology developed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) to help Chinese enterprises and policy-makers manage the social and environmental risks associated with their inbound supply chains. It argues that sustainability problems in exporting countries can lead to supply chain disruptions and damage China's international brand, affecting its access to capital and resources. The methodology was tested through pilots focusing on copper and palm oil supply chains and involved consultations with business, academic, and governmental stakeholders.

The document presents a systematic framework for evaluating supply security risks related to sustainability at both national and corporate levels in China. It defines risk through the interaction of domestic vulnerability and exposure with foreign supply hazards, including sustainability issues and national environments. The methodology employs a scoring system (0-3) across indicators of economic importance, vulnerability, and loss exposure to identify 'hotspots' in supply chains. The report concludes with five policy recommendations for the Chinese government to improve supply chain risk management, including capacity building for embassies, alignment with international standards, and the integration of sustainability into green procurement.

The report introduces the IISD Supply Risk Tool, a framework designed to identify 'hot spots' where social and environmental hazards in foreign supply chains threaten the security of supply for Chinese enterprises and the national economy. It defines supply risk as a combination of demand-side factors (economic importance and vulnerability) and supply-side hazards (country environment and producer sustainability). The methodology uses a scoring system (0-3) to calculate hazard loss exposure and overall supply risk, which was piloted using copper and palm oil supply chains. The authors argue that China lacks a central government mandate to manage its international import footprint and recommend policy steps including strengthening embassy capabilities, engaging with international standards, and integrating sustainability into green public procurement.

The document argues that deep energy retrofits—those reducing energy consumption by 50% or more—generate significant, often overlooked business value. It introduces the RMI Retrofit Value Model, which categorizes this value into nine elements: retrofit development costs, non-energy property operating costs, retrofit risk mitigation, health costs, employee costs, promotions and marketing costs, customer access and sales, property-derived revenues, and enterprise risk management. The guide provides methodologies for quantifying these benefits, such as calculating reduced absenteeism and improved worker productivity, and offers a sample report to demonstrate how to synthesize these findings for capital requests. It concludes with best practices for risk mitigation and principles for presenting value to decision-makers.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analyzed responses from 1,824 companies to a 2013 CDP climate-reporting questionnaire to determine if companies disclosed their board seats in four influential U.S. trade associations: the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (COC), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). The analysis found low rates of disclosure across these groups, with many companies failing to acknowledge their board positions even when publicly responding to the questionnaire.