# Climate Intelligence Research Summary

View the book with "<i class="fa fa-book fa-fw"></i> Book Mode".

# Climate Intelligence (read as Risk) Research Summary
What does this report cover?
1. Market Size
2. Problem Statement (climate business risk and climate financial risks)
3. Use cases
4. Users/Target Markets
5. Barriers - tech & nontech
6. Opportunity Opinion
7. Conclusion

**Why is climate a risk?**
Climate risk is the potential for climate change to create adverse consequences for human or ecological systems. This includes impacts on lives, livelihoods, health and wellbeing, economic, social and cultural assets and investments, infrastructure, services provision, ecosystems and species

Climate change is increasingly recognised as a risk for business owners. There is a framework for this and there are Three type of risks under Climate risk


Climate-related risks to your business may include:

**growing frequency and/or severity of extreme weather** – you may have increasing insurance costs, more damage to property and resources, and disruption of power and water. Customers may be unable to visit or contact your business, or suppliers may be unable to deliver goods or services.
**decreasing demand –** there may be less demand for your goods and services if they are not environmentally friendly, or competitors with more sustainable products or services target your customers. It may also be difficult to attract and retain staff if your business is not sustainable.
**global impacts** – overseas suppliers may be unable to deliver goods or services due to climate change events in their country, and the ability of your business to supply overseas customers may be similarly affected. International customers may move towards buying locally.
**increasing costs** – you may experience higher costs for the resources you use to run your business. Water restrictions may also affect your business.

Climate risk is one of many **Business Risks**. Hence there is a need to Understanding business risk, this is largely done by using all sorts of data.

Understanding potential risks and their impact, is achieved through analysis and planning.

Types of risk include:

direct risk—a threat to the business that is within your control
indirect risk—a threat to the business that is out of your control
internal risk—risks you have the power to prevent or mitigate within the business
external risk—risks you have no control over

----
### What all falls under Business risk ?

Risks, potential business impacts and resources
Expand all

Natural disasters (Climate)
(e.g. flood, fire, cyclone, storm, drought)

Pandemic
(e.g. COVID-19, swine flu, bird flu)

Global events
(e.g. wars, political disruption, supply chain disruption)

Regulatory and government policy changes
(e.g. import and export regulations, change in tax obligations)

Work health and safety
(e.g. hazards, equipment)

Environment (comes under Climate)
(e.g. sustainable practices, ethical practices)

Utilities disruption and capital works projects
(e.g. power outages, transport disruption, road works)

Technology and IT security
(e.g. computers, internet, networks, client databases, telecommunications)

Legal
(e.g. supplier agreements, lease agreements, staff contracts)

Crime
(e.g. shoplifting, internal theft, staff safety)

Reputation
(e.g. online reviews, customer feedback)

Human resources
(e.g. recruitment, staff, training)

Market, economic and financial
(e.g. economic downturns, inflation)

----

**Market Size:** Verdantix research finds that the overall climate risk digital solutions market was worth $880 million in 2021 and will grow to more than $4 billion by 2027, at a CAGR of 30%.

> Basically all that buzz about climate intelligence is nothing but the insights needed to avert/prepare/be ready for climate risk. So climate intelligence is climate risk at the core of it.
Lets understand what is this climate risk.

**Key points before we dive in:**
* Changing weather patterns may pose the most dramatic risk to businesses large and small.
* Emission control systems can be so expensive that public companies are required to report them as business costs.
* Cap and trade programs are in effect in many countries and at least 11 U.S. states.
* Climate change alters consumer behavior, to the detriment of some businesses and the benefit of others.
* The function of a risk manager is to identify, measure, monitor, and manage risk within an agreed upon risk appetite framework. Key tasks are understanding risks and
* assessing whether they are within the organization’s tolerance. Risk managers therefore must understand how their organizations can lose money or value, now and in the future. Because sustainability and climate risk can cause both direct and indirect financial loss, risk professionals play a crucial role in managing SCR

### Target Market & Use cases: There are 3-
#### The three types of climate risk faced by companies and investors

Companies, and the investors who finance them, experience three main types of climate-related risks.

**1. Physical effects**

These are related to the actual physical risks of climate change, as mentioned above. A business may have physical premises or operations located on the banks of a river, on a low-lying floodplain or close to a timber plantation for example, exposing it to water or fire damage. Another example could be the change in the availability of water due to shifting rainfall patterns.

**2. Impacts incurred in the transition to a low-carbon, ‘green’ economy**

With awareness of the global warming issue now almost ubiquitous, increasing numbers of organizations are reducing the amount of carbon involved in their business operations, whether it’s in their own manufacturing processes or in looking to source raw materials from ‘green’ suppliers.

As with any change, there is a transition cost as businesses pivot away from their prior products and practices, and towards new decarbonized ones, often resulting in what’s known as ‘stranded assets’ where due to the transition, certain business assets are no longer needed and lose their value to the organization.

Decommissioning existing tools and resources, and investing in new equipment, technology, and processes designed to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses would be one such example of a transition cost.

**3. Liabilities resulting from climate regulation**

This risk is the financial one potentially incurred by organizations as they face fines and penalties for not complying with standardized industry, governing body, or government regulations, for example a country committing to be net zero by a certain date. The requirements being imposed by authorities is increasing both in number and severity as alarm grows around the global warming scenario.

Not only must businesses incur the costs of transitioning to cleaner and more sustainable operations and processes, but they face the increasing likelihood of damaging financial costs if they don’t.

**ESG: accountability and transparency in managing climate risk**

In an attempt to tackle climate change and sustainability challenges, governments and regulatory bodies are creating and enforcing legislation as a way to force industries and companies to reduce the environmental harm of their business practices.

Growing numbers of investors also want the businesses in which they invest to be sustainable and ethical. ESG is the acronym for Environmental, Social, and (Corporate) Governance, the three broad categories or areas of interest for these ‘socially responsible investors’.

ESG is a set of criteria required to be incorporated in financial evaluation, and lending or investing decisions by financial institutions. ESG criteria are guided by standards and frameworks which may be local or global, in an attempt to create consistency in evaluation, and to better understand risk.

Examples of these standards and frameworks include the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), amongst others.

These standards and frameworks list climate and other related indicators that should be measured, tracked, and reported on so as to understand the measures in place to manage climate change, as well as the emissions contributing to it.

ESG metrics are commonly thought of and referred to as non-financial in nature. This may, however, be changing as value and risk become increasingly associated to these metrics. Industry experts foresee ESG data needing to be managed similarly to financial data, and in-line with acceptable accounting practices. For example, double materiality is a recently introduced concept which now needs to be considered.

An extension of the key accounting concept of materiality of financial information (i.e. information that should be disclosed if 'a reasonable person would consider it important'), double materiality refers to how it is not just climate-related impacts and risks to an organization which may be material, but that the effects and influence of the organization's activities on the climate may be material as well.

**There are multiple ESG stakeholders, all of which consider climate change:**

Standards bodies and frameworks such as TCFD, GRI, SASB, CDP and GRESB define metrics and principles regarding what should be reported on.

**Regulators** such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) propose rulings and laws by which countries, industries and businesses must comply.
**ESG ratings agencies** such as MSCI, Sustainalytics, FTSE Russell, S&P Global set criteria by which organizational ESG performance can be assessed, and assign scores that can be used to understand companies’ ESG performance relative to their peers.
**Investors, banks,** and other funders who have ESG-linked investment mandates and who are seeking to invest sustainably.
**Consumers**, who via their growing awareness around ESG topics and changing buyer behavior, can alter market demand for company products and services.
Activists, who may be very invested and involved in drawing attention to certain areas pertaining to ESG, and seeking to influence consumer and business behavior in accordance with their aims.
As the multi-pronged influence of ESG grows, businesses are facing the need to comply with and report against multiple standards required by various stakeholders, at different times and in different formats.

The complexity of managing ESG, including climate risks, has grown rapidly over the last decade and is now at the point where specialized software is needed to manage the various operational aspects of data collection, storage, collaboration, analysis and display, and packaging and reporting.

---

### World of Climate Modelling

Unlike weather forecasts, which describe a detailed picture of the expected daily conditions starting from the present, climate models are based on probability, indicating areas with higher chances to be warmer or cooler and wetter or drier than usual. Climate models are based on global patterns in the ocean and atmosphere, and records of the types of weather that occurred under similar patterns in the past.

Climate models are based on well documented physical processes governing global circulation in the atmosphere and ocean. To project climate into the future, the initial conditions are set to reflect a finite set of possible future conditions called scenarios. Scenarios are possible stories about how quickly human population will grow, how land will be used, how economies will evolve, and the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases that would result for each storyline. In 2010, climate scientists agreed upon a new set of scenarios for the future concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Collectively, these scenarios are known as Representative Concentration Pathways or RCPs. Each RCP indicates the amount of climate forcing, expressed in Watts per square metre, which would result from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 2100

---
**What types of financial risks are associated with climate change?**
**Physical Risks**
Climate change is linked to rising temperatures and sea levels; changing precipitation; volatile weather; and an increase in the size and intensity of natural disasters like wildfires, hurricanes, and heatwaves. These events have and will continue to damage assets and infrastructure, displace communities, and disrupt supply chains and business operations. The risk carried by these changes is called physical risk.

A substantial amount of persistent, climate-related physical change is already “baked in” to geophysical systems: carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change, remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years after it is emitted and drives changes in physical risk for several decades. Therefore, for many institutions, the question is not only how to stop the physical changes from happening, but also how to account for and limit exposure to them.

**Businesses** face substantial physical risks from climate change. Even if a business’ assets (such as buildings, equipment, and vehicles) remain undamaged by an extreme weather event, these events can lead to productivity loss (particularly in agriculture) and supply-chain issues. For example, of the nearly $150 billion in estimated damages from California’s 2018 wildfires, approximately 60 percent were indirect losses caused by disrupted economic activity.

**Households and real estate assets** are also at risk. Property damage is the most immediate source of risk, and as home equity represents almost a third of US wealth, property damage or loss can have significant repercussions on the US economy. Natural disasters are also associated with an increase in credit card debt, debt collection, mortgage delinquency, and foreclosure. Households that are already financially unstable or who exist in underserved communities tend to experience these problems most acutely, and are also most likely to live in places that will feel the worst impacts of climate change.

**Local governments** will face notable challenges from climate-related physical change as well. This can involve the risk of destruction of large-scale community infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and public buildings that must be replaced, and impacts on municipal budgets. Research has shown that climate change can increase the likelihood of local budget deficits and scarce resources. A 2022 study by scholars affiliated with Resources for the Future (RFF) found that California wildfires between 1990 and 2015 caused a long-term increase in local government spending and had a negative and significant impact on municipal budgets.

**Insurance providers** may have to contend with losses as they pay out many large claims after natural disasters. Insurance is designed under the assumption that risks are predictable and that only a portion of those paying premiums will file claims at one time. As a larger portion of people and properties are likely to be affected by natural disasters in the future, changing risks and payout structures could cause major problems and, down the road, make insuring types of risk unaffordable for customers and/or impractical for insurers. Notably, about 95 percent of flood insurance in the United States is provided by the federal government through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), often at a subsidized rate; the risk is deemed uninsurable by private insurers at rates affordable to typical households. However, major storms in recent years have driven the NFIP deficit to over $20 billion, prompting calls for reform.

**Transition Risk**
Limiting further climate change will require significant changes to the global energy system, other greenhouse gas-emitting activities, and throughout the economy. The risks that accompany an uncertain path to a decarbonized economy are called transition risks. How intense transition risk is, and where it will be felt the most, will be influenced by both government policy action (or inaction) to drive mitigation and the potentially changing expectations of the private sector—including investors—about future policy actions. These forces can contribute to transition risk via both underinvesting and investing too quickly in low- vs high-emitting activities when the profitability of business models depends on uncertain public policy and customer demand.

Businesses may suffer from significant losses in the transition to net-zero emissions if their production or business models rely on greenhouse gas-intensive raw materials or processes. Among other considerations, businesses face the risk of their assets becoming “stranded.” Stranded assets are durable assets that may become unusable or prematurely decommissioned due to policy or market changes after a company has made an initial investment. For example, a company that builds an expensive power plant with the intention of recouping costs over the next few decades may later encounter regulations that make the plant unprofitable, rendering the asset “stranded” as the company can no longer recoup its initial costs as expected.

Local governments can face significant transition risk if their finances are built around industries, such as oil and gas production and refining, that emit substantial greenhouse gases. A 2022 RFF working paper, for example, found that fossil fuels are responsible for approximately $85.2 billion in revenue each year for US municipalities, states, and tribes. And although revenue streams for fossil fuel communities are expected to dwindle both with and without future climate action, the uncertain nature of the low-carbon transition poses a further risk for communities that have historically relied on these funds to support infrastructure projects, education, and public health.

**What are the implications of climate financial risk for the financial sector and the public?**
The impacts of physical and transitional risk range from profit losses and higher default risks for individual companies and investors to broad concerns over the stability of the system and burden on the public. This section details those impacts.

**Higher Cost of Capital**
When a municipality faces severe infrastructure damage from a natural disaster, or when a company suffers from major profit losses in the energy transition, the likelihood of it defaulting on its debt or declaring bankruptcy increases. Considering these higher default risks, investors often demand a higher return on the investment and increase the at-risk borrower’s cost of raising capital. The degree of this increase depends on investor knowledge about the borrower’s climate risk exposure and the borrower’s actions to mitigate these risks.

Recent studies show that climate-related impacts on the cost of capital are already emerging. Municipalities hit by one or more hurricanes saw their municipal debts downgraded by rating agencies, and those with more sea level rise exposure are paying higher yields, especially on long-term bonds. Similarly, firms with higher carbon emissions may also need to provide higher returns on their stocks, consistent with lower investor demand for stocks of these companies.

**Systemic Risk and the Stability of the Financial System**
In finance, systemic risk refers to a broad risk of failure across the financial system. Such failure can arise from one major shock leading to a series of cascading failures within the financial system, or different parts of the financial system facing highly correlated risks. The 2008 financial crisis is a case in point where initial problems with mortgage-backed securities were amplified and spread by financial institutions.

Climate change has the potential to trigger such failures, as recognized by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and others. Its broad impacts are further complicated by the deep uncertainties about the climate’s future, which hinders financial markets’ ability to price assets to properly reflect the relevant risks. Surveys show that financial professionals believe climate risks are underevaluated in asset prices. As a result, prices of a large class of assets could be sensitive to major updates in climate science, extreme weather events, and changes in climate policy. These sensitivities increase the possibility for disorderly price adjustments and spillover effects to other financial markets and the flow of goods and services. However, the timescale of climate change might allow sufficient time for assets to adjust given the typical investment horizon.

**Burden on the Public**
Climate risks carry ramifications for the general public, including those who are not active financial market participants. Investments from pension funds and retirement savings are subject to the same risks as other investors. Furthermore, taxpayer dollars are at stake through the federal government’s role as the main provider of mortgage guarantees, flood insurance, crop insurance, disaster aid, and other social programs, and as the insurer of last resort to the financial sector in extreme events such as the 2008 financial crisis. In addition, if climate-related financial risks lead to a general economic downturn, millions will suffer from significant welfare losses and economic hardship.

---

**Steps Business Leaders Take**

Although climate change poses various risks to businesses across industry lines, there are ways to mitigate these concerns. Some steps for business leaders consider include the following:

**Assess natural disaster exposures—** With climate change contributing to an increase in extreme weather events, business leaders need to be aware of their particular natural disaster risks. After all, different locations have varying climate exposures. Following an assessment of their unique risks, business leaders should implement measures to minimise losses from potential weather events (eg raise sockets, fuse boxes and electrical devices to at least 1.5 metres above the floor to protect against floodwater damage). Guidance from the Environment Agency can help business leaders protect against natural disasters.
**Address climate change risks—** Apart from evaluating natural disaster exposures, business leaders should also ensure they address their physical, transitional and liability risks stemming from climate change. These risks may differ based on industry standards, product offerings, daily operations and environmental sustainability efforts. Referencing data and engaging in risk modelling can help business leaders develop a clearer picture of their exposures. To reduce these risks, business leaders should:
**Work with a legal professional** to determine applicable climate change legislation and associated compliance requirements.
**Adopt company policie**s that promote environmental sustainability (eg developing a carbon emission reduction plan, introducing renewable energy sources, incorporating green technologies within daily operations, utilising eco-friendly materials throughout production processes and reducing overall waste).
**Consult stakeholders** to hear their climate change concerns and gather further insights regarding eco-friendly practices.
**Purchase adequate coverage—** It’s critical for business leaders to ensure proper protection against climate change risks by securing sufficient insurance coverage. It’s best to consult a trusted insurance professional to determine specific coverage needs.
Conclusion

Overall, climate change is a major concern that already has and will continue to affect businesses going forward. Fortunately, with proper mitigation measures in place, business leaders can help reduce the negative effects of climate change, safeguard their operations and promote environmental sustainability for years to come.

---

## Three pressure points
CEOs may not be thinking hard enough about climate risks, but key corporate stakeholders are doing their best to change that. And whether stakeholders’ motivations are informed by climate risk, decarbonization commitments, or both, it’s imperative for business leaders to pay closer attention.

This starts by appreciating the speed at which the stakeholder landscape is changing. Several signs suggest a tipping point that could catch unprepared leaders by surprise—for at least three reasons1 financial institutions are getting serious about finding climate risks hidden in their portfolios; governments are seeking to live up to big decarbonization promises; and sweeping new climate reporting requirements are taking shape quickly—and in some cases are already affecting the real economy. A review of recent developments in these areas—and their implications—can help leadership teams start to challenge old assumptions and prioritize action.

#### 1. Growing financial pressures
Financial institutions of all stripes are getting serious about climate change. For instance, consider the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). This coalition of banks, insurance companies, asset managers, and asset owners has pledged to cut emissions from their portfolios and lending to reach net zero by 2050, with an interim target set for 2030. Formed only in late 2021, GFANZ members already represent about US$130 trillion—40% of the world’s financial assets.

Although the most immediate decarbonization impacts are being felt in GHG-intensive industries (coal companies are finding it harder to attract capital, for example, because many financial-services companies have already announced their divestment), the effects are now spreading more widely. Financial institutions are starting to make investment decisions based on the climate-linked risks of their portfolios. Here’s how Christian Ulbrich, the CEO of US-based real estate services company Jones Lang LaSalle, described the challenge in an interview with strategy+business magazine: “There is no easy solution for many buildings because of the way they are constructed—it is financially unattractive to try to decarbonize them. But if you sit on those assets, they’ll very quickly become stranded assets. The speed with which financial institutions are declining to finance those buildings and investors and fund managers are deciding not to buy them is amazing.”

The upshot for CEOs and their leadership teams is clear: the pressure from financial institutions will soon start to touch everything from a company’s credit rating, valuation, and cost of capital to its ability to borrow and get insurance. Too many leaders have not come to grips with the implications of a business world where climate risks are transparent, public, financially material for shareholders, and ultimately part of a board’s fiduciary duty to manage.

#### 2. Stronger government commitments
Governments are also ramping up decarbonization commitments. Today, an astonishing 90% of the global economy falls under a net-zero pledge, up from just 16% in 2019. Such promises can only be met with a massive realignment of economic activity. Although most net-zero commitments target 2050, countries are laying out interim goals and pressuring companies to do likewise. Proposed UK Treasury rules, for example, would force large UK companies by 2024 to detail how they plan to meet their own net-zero targets (with companies in high-emitting sectors doing so in 2023).
Although the prospect of mandates and blockbuster regulatory moves get the lion’s share of corporate attention, a host of seemingly smaller actions could cause C-suite surprises. These include green taxation policies, incentives for innovation, and end-of-life recycling requirements. A recently enacted UK plastic packaging tax, for instance, has caught some manufacturers and importers flat-footed as they race to gather recycled-content data from their extended supply chains, or even from their own operations.

More is on the way. The European Union Green Deal—a group of policies and initiatives adopted in late 2019 to help make Europe the first climate-neutral continent—includes more than 1,000 new or modified levies. At a global level, our PwC colleagues have mapped more than 1,400 environmental taxes and incentives across 88 countries and regions as part of an ongoing research effort. To explore interactive snapshots of 21 of these countries, see Green Taxes and Incentives Tracker on pwc.com.

#### 3. Better nonfinancial reporting
As lenders, asset managers, investors, and insurers get sensitized to the climate risks in their portfolios, they are demanding more transparency from clients and customers. The result is an unprecedented desire for effective nonfinancial reporting.

One popular choice is the Taskforce for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). TCFD was established in 2015 by the Financial Stability Board, and has been embraced by financial institutions, which remain an influential part of the 3,100 companies in 93 countries that now support it. TCFD rules essentially require businesses to identify, manage, and report on climate-related risks—using scenario analysis—as well as to report the level of carbon embedded in the footprint of the business. The TCFD framework provides a useful starting point for companies eager to start understanding the climate risks and opportunities they should anticipate. TCFD reporting is starting to be enshrined in law, first in New Zealand and more recently in Japan and the United Kingdom—with more countries on the way.

---

## Use cases
### Facing up to the urgency
Crosscurrents like those just described emphasize how important it is for CEOs to get practical about their own goals and climate ambitions—and quickly. This starts with gaining a better understanding of what a changing climate means for their companies. In our experience, doing so helps leaders develop a better understanding of the science, the implications, the trends, and even the technical language that can help them make better informed decisions. Top management teams will need such understanding—and shareholders, investors, employees, customers, and other stakeholders increasingly will expect it.

The three examples that follow tee up the sorts of lessons that companies learn when they rigorously investigate climate risk, while highlighting the practical steps that organizations can take to improve. As we’ll show, it all starts by taking a close look at the breadth of the company’s value chain, and seeing how the various elements respond to the stresses of science-based climate scenarios. We hope that these examples help serve as inspiration, and if necessary, as a wake-up call for companies that may have been putting off their own analyses under the mistaken assumption that the challenges were safely off in the distant future.

### Floods, drought, and new products
A global industrial equipment maker was keen to assess its physical exposure to climate change in the context of better defining a fuller climate agenda. It started with physical risk, by analyzing how its own global operations and those of its key supply chain partners would be affected by a scenario in which the world continued to rely heavily on fossil fuels.

The modeling showed the executives that more than two dozen of the company’s manufacturing and other sites were at elevated risk of flood damage. Three of the sites had already been experiencing problems. Meanwhile, a different two dozen sites were subject to increased drought in the years ahead, which posed risks to the company’s manufacturing operations. Further analysis revealed weaknesses in the company’s supply chain, and instances where materials that it sourced from a single supplier could be in jeopardy.

All told, the analysis helped the company better understand the risks it faced from a changing climate and how they might affect various parts of its value chain (including a detailed financial view). At the same time, the effort helped management generate new strategic options and test its resilience against them.

Finally, while the company learned that it needed to revamp a key product, lest it malfunction in areas experiencing wetter conditions, the effort also identified new products it could develop to help meet rising customer demand for climate-resilient offerings.

### A retailer takes stock
A large retailer that wanted to quantify its climate vulnerabilities, given the new TCFD requirements, started by analyzing a range of risks (among them regulation, market, technology, and reputation risks) to see how they might affect key parts of the business under two warming scenarios. The exercise showed company leaders how disruptive the economic transition to a low-carbon economy could be. For example, in one warming scenario, the retailer could face an 18% increase in overall transportation costs by 2030. And when the leadership team factored the company’s growth plans into the equation, the costs more than doubled.

To tackle these climate transition risks, the company began investigating ways to reduce its dependency on conventional road transport, while seeking out new suppliers that were ahead of its current ones in preparing for a green transition. Along with this reconfiguration, the retailer added climate into its strategic calculations in a more robust way—for example, by looking more closely at its approach to delivery, how it might rely more on electrified transport and other greener alternatives, and even how the location of its stores affected its climate transition risk (based in part on how it expected the climate expectations of customers to evolve).

In addition to identifying climate transition risks, the retailer’s deep dive uncovered worrying physical risks. Under one warming scenario, the leadership team saw that dozens of its buildings in three important markets were at heightened risk of storms and floods. The cumulative revenue loss from these events was significant enough to prompt the retailer to look into extending resilience measures in the three markets to help guarantee future insurance coverage. The retailer also promptly began to reflect this new risk assessment in its location selection strategy as well.

### A conglomerate finds risk—and opportunity
The conglomerate we highlighted at the beginning of this article began its journey by tasking a cross-functional team with conducting a vulnerability assessment. Using the TCFD framework, the team identified more than three dozen risks and opportunities most relevant to the company’s situation.

Using scenario analysis, the team explored how the company’s prospects might change under different warming scenarios, converting the analysis into a series of heat maps for several of the organization’s key business units. Although some maps showed significant risks, others showed a mix of opportunities, too. Underscoring the difficulties that CEOs face in confronting these issues: in one case, the same physical risks represented a serious challenge for the customers of one business unit, and an opportunity for the customers of another.


---
### Conclusion
1. Big problem? - Yes
2. Many use cases - Yes
3. What can we do? - too many things
4. Next steps? we need to choose one of the areas and evaluate with a. with climate modelling skills b. learn about risk, do a certification perhaps and c. build a MVP with a POC
___

Some Cool things I found useful
---
- [Future Climate Dashboard]([https://longpaddock.qld.gov.au/qld-future-clim])
- [Global Risks Report](https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2022)
- [IPCC FactSheet](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/factsheets/)
- [Features](/s/features)
- [Report WEF](https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2022.pdf)
- [PWC Report](https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/reinventing-the-future/take-on-tomorrow/download/SBpwc_2022-05-16-Climate-r2.pdf)

Sources
---
- https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/risk/environment-climate#:~:text=Climate%20change%20is%20increasingly%20recognised,disruption%20of%20power%20and%20water.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.944964/full#:~:text=From%20enterprises'%20internal%20perspective%2C%20climate,between%20large%20customers%20and%20enterprises.

###### tags: `Climate Intelligence` `Research`