Environmental Risk Consulting

In this Science study ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/er4CDurn, see also here article in Financial Times about it👉https://lnkd.in/enxcG69K) , researchers analyzed 1,500 climate policies implemented across 41 countries between 1998 and 2022. The goal? To identify which policies truly work in reducing emissions. Here’s what they found: 🔘 Successful Policy Interventions: 63 policies led to significant emission reductions, cutting between 0.6 and 1.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2. ✅ 🔘 Price-Based Instruments: Carbon pricing and emission trading schemes were particularly effective. 💰 🔘 In developed economies, pricing stands out individually, with 20% out of all successful detected interventions being associated with pricing individually. Yet subsidies are the most complementary instrument, especially in combination with pricing (33%). By contrast, in developing economies regulation is the most powerful policy.  🔘 Policy Mixes: Combining policies, especially market-based ones, with regulatory measures led to greater success. 🔄 🔘 Sector-Specific Findings: Different sectors (e.g., buildings, transport) responded better to specific policy types. 🏢🚗 In the FT article, there’s some caution about the findings: it might take longer than the study suggests for policy interventions to show success ⏳. For me, the key takeaways are: 🔹 Policy Mix is Essential: To be truly effective, a combination of policies is necessary 🎯. 🔹 Context Matters: Effective policy mixes vary by sector and economic context 🌍. 🔹 Practical Over Perfect: Instead of seeking the "perfect" policy mix, focus on taking action. It's too complex to aim for perfection—just strive to make a difference 💪.

When government speaks, trust is either built or broken. And sometimes, it’s broken in just three words and an emoji. That’s exactly what happened last week—and Ghana Twitter was in uproar. Under a video advertising the home service delivery of IV transfusion, the official account of the Food and Drugs Authority, the nation’s regulatory authority, had responded: “STOP BLEACHING PLEASE!!!! 🤦🏽♀️” On one hand, the concern is valid. Skin-bleaching drips are unsafe and unapproved. But on the other hand—this wasn’t a personal page. This was the official voice of the State. And when the State speaks like this, three things happen: 1. Credibility weakens - Sarcasm replaces authority. 2. Public trust erodes - Citizens question if they can take government communication seriously. 3. A bad precedent is set - suggesting emotion and improvisation are acceptable substitutes for structured, responsible messaging. What should have happened instead? A factual, calm, and clear statement: “IV drips for skin bleaching are not FDA-approved. They pose serious health risks, including organ damage. The public is advised to avoid such procedures.” See the difference? One alienates, the other educates. One is reactive, the other protects credibility. The uproar was justified. And it reveals something bigger: governance communication in Ghana needs structure. Tone guides. Training. Internal checks. And yes, consequences when standards are breached. Because government communication isn’t casual content—it is the representation of state authority. When institutions speak, they shape how citizens see them — and ultimately, how citizens trust them. Structure is not optional. It’s the bedrock of credibility. Citizens deserve clarity. Institutions need discipline. And government communicators must remember: every post is policy in public view. #governancecommunication #civicengagement #ghanapolitics #publictrust

Translating health science into understandable and clear health advice isn’t easy, especially on social media. And it’s not about what algorithms want us to do to engage their users. It’s about how people think. In the past three years, the World Health Organization worked on a project with Meta, using their Brand Lift Study tool to test how different kinds of message framings, built on behavioural science theories, affect how people perceive risk and act on it. In the paper below, we highlight a measles vaccination experiment in which we targeted parents of young children. We compared two types of messaging: - Verbatim: fact-based and precise “1 in 1,000 children who get measles will die.” - Gist: essence-based and emotional “Some children who get measles will die.” Both are accurate, but they communicate risk differently. Here are a few reflections from the process: - We need to design social media public health campaigns with behavioural science lenses, not just communication instinct. - We need to evaluate impact beyond likes and shares; focus on understanding and intention. - We must keep messages evidence-based but human; clarity matters as much as accuracy. What matters most isn’t how much information we share, but how people make sense of it. Small shifts in framing can change how people understand risk and how they act on it — which is the ultimate objective of public health communication. WHO project team: Simon Williams Elena Altieri Mohamed Gulaid Giselle Miguens Lisa Menning Karin Stein, MD, MScPH

It is clear that complex policy problems like #ClimateChange require a combination of instruments. However, as I argue in this new article for Policy Quarterly: "Just because multiple policies are justifiable, this does not mean that any particular policy is justified." Attached are some thoughts, drawing on empirical and theoretical evidence, on how to design a judicious policy mix in #Aotearoa #NewZealand. Come for the jokes about our predicament! Stay for the insights into current #economics and #policy research! If I was to summarise the essay in a few bullet points, here goes: 🗣️ For a nation of supposedly practical people, we are remarkably beholden to academic economic theory that sounds fine in the abstract, but does not hold up in the real world. 🗣️ The context of climate change policy is #TransformativeChange. This is both a source of regret (i.e. loss of existing systems) and opportunity (i.e. transitions into better systems). What matters is that our policy tools – from appraisal to implementation to evaluation – are suited to this task, rather than designed for marginal adjustments in a world that stays – ceteris paribus – roughly the same. 🗣️ A lot of economic "common-sense" that influences our policy making does not survive scrutiny. For instance, it is commonly taken for granted that non-pricing policies are necessarily inefficient because emissions pricing is the most efficient in theory. However, in real-word circumstances, where markets are highly imperfect and policy targets are highly demanding, it is not at all obvious that non-pricing policies are necessarily less efficient. They might be, they might not. 🗣️ Efficiency is only one of many principles that does, and should, govern policy making. Also, economic efficiency can be defined in critically different ways; in particular, there is a crucial difference between static efficiency at a single point in time and dynamic efficiency over time. In #ClimatePolicy, the latter is highly relevant: it will sometimes make sense to invest in expensive options to drive down future costs and therefore increase dynamic efficiency. 🗣️ #Paradigms shape our understanding of economic possibilities. A paradigm of market failure strives to return the economy to equilibrium, which is rather problematic when our current system is optimised for fossil fuels. A paradigm of evolutionary economics puts us in the mindset of transformation, of ecosystems adapting to change and evolving into new arrangements. In this vein, Simon Sharpe redefines the policymaker’s role as follows: "We are not mechanics, fixing the machine when it fails. We are something more like gardeners, tending and shaping the ecosystem so that it grows in ways that we find beneficial". All this and much more in the article attached, part of an exceptional collection of essays on environmental policy in this month's Policy Quarterly, edited by the inimitable Professor Jonathan Boston. Links in comments below. ⏬

In countries like the Netherlands, trash doesn’t just disappear — it goes underground. How is it organized in your city? Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht use underground waste containers and smart collection systems where bins are connected to large subterranean units, keeping streets visually clean, reducing odour, and cutting unnecessary truck movements. But this isn’t just a Dutch story. It’s a global shift powered by technology. 📊 How leading cities are transforming waste management: 🇳🇱 Netherlands • Underground containers reduce surface bin clutter by up to 70–80% in dense neighbourhoods • IoT sensors monitor fill levels, enabling 30–40% fewer collection trips 🇰🇷 Songdo, South Korea • Fully pneumatic waste system • Trash travels through underground vacuum tubes at 70 km/h • Eliminated traditional garbage trucks in residential zones • Reduced waste handling costs by up to 50% 🇳🇴 Bergen, Norway • Pneumatic underground network beneath historic districts • Cut CO₂ emissions from waste collection vehicles by up to 35% • Reduced noise pollution in heritage zones 🇸🇬 Singapore • Smart bins + centralised waste chutes in HDBs • Waste-to-energy plants process over 90% of Singapore’s waste, shrinking landfill dependency • Semakau Landfill projected lifespan extended from 2045 to beyond 2035 through tech & efficiency gains 🚀 Technology making this possible: • IoT sensors for real-time bin monitoring • AI-powered route optimisation reducing fuel use • Pneumatic vacuum tube networks • Automated robotics for waste sorting • Waste-to-energy conversion systems ✅ The impact: • Cleaner cities • Fewer pests and odours • Reduced emissions • Lower operating costs • Better citizen experience The future of urban living isn’t just about shiny skyscrapers — it’s about invisible infrastructure working intelligently beneath our feet. Smart cities aren’t just built. They’re engineered to stay clean. #SmartCities #UrbanInnovation #Sustainability #CircularEconomy #CleanTech

Silence on sustainability is not strategy Clarity, not caution, drives impact 🌎 Great read today in Harvard Business Review exploring how companies can strengthen their sustainability communications in response to rising political pressure and evolving stakeholder expectations. Rather than retreating or reducing visibility, the authors make a strong case for rethinking communication as a strategic tool to build trust, enhance relevance, and unlock the full value of sustainability efforts. While some organizations are choosing silence to avoid scrutiny (from political backlash to accusations of greenwashing) this approach can undermine credibility. Public concern about climate inaction remains high, and companies that choose not to speak risk appearing disengaged. At the same time, sustainability strategies are increasingly linked to tangible business outcomes, from cost savings and resource efficiency to supply chain resilience and long-term risk management. To respond effectively, companies must begin by understanding what matters to their audiences. This means moving beyond general assumptions and using employee and customer insights to shape communication that is specific, relevant, and grounded in lived experience. Boston Children’s Hospital offers a clear example of how stakeholder input can guide both communications and operational decisions in ways that enhance internal alignment and external resonance. Equally important is the way messages are delivered. While factual accuracy is critical, the most effective communications also connect emotionally, using storytelling to make abstract issues relatable. The article emphasizes the power of framing climate action in terms of widely held values (such as protecting future generations or ensuring business continuity) to reach broader audiences and avoid polarizing debates. Companies also need to move beyond the conventional sustainability report. While compliance remains necessary, relying solely on annual disclosures can limit impact. Organizations like Tillamook and Boston Medical Center are showing how digital formats and multi-channel content can make complex information more accessible, and how continuous storytelling can keep sustainability top of mind across stakeholder groups. By grounding their messages in real insights, using language that resonates across audiences, and choosing formats that encourage dialogue and connection, companies can position themselves as credible leaders in a space where expectations are only becoming more complex. #sustainability #sustainable #esg #business #greenwashing #greenhushing

🌍 "Reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases may be almost impossible without a green transition—a substantial transformation of consumption and production patterns." This powerful opening from Prof. Timothy Besley and Prof. Torsten Persson’s latest QJE paper sets the stage for a bold, fresh look at climate policy. In "The Political Economics of Green Transitions", they move beyond the usual focus on carbon taxes, exploring how societal values, political cycles, and market forces combine to either support or hinder a greener future. Their model offers actionable insights on why some green policies fall short—and what it takes to overcome those barriers. 🔍 Their policy recommendations? Flexible, adaptive policies that go beyond financial incentives. Public campaigns to nurture green values. Bipartisan commitments to prevent policy reversals. And importantly, reducing lobbying power from high-polluting industries to keep policy aligned with public interest. For a deep dive into how these insights can shape sustainable policymaking, check out the full article 👇 #GreenTransition 🌱 #ClimatePolicy #SustainabilityMatters #PoliticalEconomy

For too long, we have applied a narrow lens to our policy decisions, often overlooking nature's vital role in our economies, societies, and very survival. This approach has led to unintended costs, missed opportunities, and an inaccurate representation of our true national wealth. As a paradigm shift, we must embed the consideration of nature throughout our policy processes, from economic planning to national security strategies and all sector development initiatives. Why is this so crucial? Our sectors, national security, and economies all depend on nature. Yet, we continue to develop policies in these spheres independently, rarely considering nature's roles. This siloed approach is no longer sustainable or sensible in our interconnected world. Mainstreaming nature-based solutions or echo-system adaptation in our decision-making has the potential to create greater gains across economic, social, and environmental outcomes. It will provide us with a more accurate picture of our choices' true costs and benefits, allowing for more informed and sustainable decisions. To achieve this, we need to adopt what we call the "CASE" approach: Cross-sectoral: We must craft policies that make relevant and aligned changes across multiple sectors rather than addressing them one at a time. Appropriate: Nature should be considered at all appropriate points in the decision-making process, even in sectors where it has not been historically accounted for. Strategic: We must focus on decisions that influence impactful pathways, ensuring that our mainstreaming efforts achieve the pace of change needed to improve wellbeing and reverse nature loss. Evidence-based: Our efforts must be grounded in robust scientific evidence, drawing on multiple sources of knowledge and understanding. Implementing this approach will require changes in how we account for our assets, consider our options, evaluate those options, and ultimately make decisions. It will mean including natural capital in our national accounts, considering nature-based solutions alongside traditional approaches, and ensuring that our cost-benefit analyses fully account for environmental impacts and ecosystem services. This is not an easy task. It will require investment in new capacities, the development of new methodologies, and a willingness to challenge long-held assumptions. But the potential benefits are immense. As leaders, we are responsible for ensuring that our governance systems evolve to meet these challenges. By mainstreaming nature in our decision-making processes, we can create a more sustainable, resilient, and prosperous future for all. #naturemainstreaming, #natureinpolicy, #naturebased, #ecosystemservices, #naturalcapital, #sustainabledecisions, #holisticpolicy, #naturepositive, #biodiversityeconomy, #greenaccounting, #natureinclusive, #ecosystemvalue, #naturefirst, #integratedpolicy, #naturesmartdecisions, Green Climate Fund

Not all comms jobs are created equal. There are comms jobs. And then there are roles where one wrong word costs millions. This is why high-stakes communications roles are so misunderstood. When things go wrong. When politics are involved. When leaders are under pressure. These roles aren't optional — they're existential. Here are three of them: 1️⃣ Crisis Communications Specialist → Protects the organization's reputation when something goes wrong - data breaches, scandals, accidents, lawsuits, leadership failures. → Key skills: Risk assessment, media response, rapid messaging, scenario planning, emotional intelligence. → They work with: Executives, legal teams, PR, security, HR, regulators, and the media. 2️⃣ Government / Public Affairs Specialist → They manage how an organization engages with governments, regulators, and policymakers — and how policy impacts the business. → Key skills: Policy analysis, stakeholder mapping, advocacy messaging, political awareness. → They work with: Government officials, legal teams, industry bodies, lobby groups, executives. 3️⃣ Executive Communications Manager → They shape how senior leaders communicate, internally and externally, so their voice, decisions, and presence build trust and credibility. → Key skills: Speechwriting, narrative building, leadership positioning, stakeholder alignment. → They work with: CEOs, boards, HR, strategy teams, media, and internal comms. Think about this real-world scenario: A company is accused of environmental harm. ➡️ Crisis Comms manages what is said, when, and how to avoid legal and reputational collapse. ➡️ Public Affairs works with regulators and government to manage investigations and policy risk. ➡️ Executive Comms prepares the CEO to face employees, investors, and the public with clarity and authority. Same crisis. Three specialized roles. One outcome: whether the organization survives with trust intact. High-stakes communication isn't about posting. It's about protecting legitimacy, power, and public trust. When things go wrong, these roles determine whether an organization loses trust, leadership, or its license to operate. Which of these roles do you think is most misunderstood or most undervalued? 📌 Save this post for a reference if the mixup comes in. ♻️ Repost to spread the clarity ➡️ Follow me, Ann Wavinya, for simplified strategic communication tips.

I am working on a course module on Carbon Pricing as I believe it is going to be an important instrument of corporate transition to a low carbon economy. The concept is really interesting, and I was lucky to work on Carbon pricing during my stint at GSK (during CSRD readiness). I'm excited to share an article summarized by me on the economic rationale for carbon pricing, featuring the latest 2024-2025 data and research. The summary has been taken from the module, and it is insightful with data and to understand the concept. 📖 What's inside: ✅ The Current Climate Challenge • 2024 global emissions data by region and sector • Major emitters' trends (China, US, India, EU) • Carbon budget analysis for 1.5°C and 2°C targets • Composition of greenhouse gases and their sources ✅ Understanding Market Failure • Why carbon emissions represent negative externalities • The global commons and free-rider problems • How missing price signals distort investment and innovation • Economic inefficiency of unpriced emissions ✅ The Social Cost of Carbon • Latest estimates: $185-$280 per tonne (vs. $6 actual global average!) • Key factors: discount rates, climate sensitivity, damage functions • Applications in regulatory analysis and policy design • Recent EPA updates and international adoption ✅ Carbon Pricing vs. Traditional Regulation • Cost-effectiveness through equalized marginal abatement costs • Dynamic efficiency and innovation incentives • Empirical evidence from real-world implementations • When to use market mechanisms vs. command-and-control • The case for complementary policy approaches The gap between the true social cost of carbon ($185-280/tonne) and what emitters actually pay represents one of the largest market failures in history. Closing this gap is essential for efficient climate action. This is Module 1 of a comprehensive carbon pricing course. Perfect for policymakers, sustainability professionals, economists, and anyone interested in climate solutions that work with market forces. What's your experience with carbon pricing policies? I'd love to hear perspectives from different regions and sectors! #CarbonPricing #ClimatePolicy #SustainabilityLeadership #EnvironmentalEconomics #NetZero #ESG #ClimateAction #GreenEconomy #CarbonMarkets #ClimateFinance #Decarbonization #SustainableBusiness #ClimateChange #EnergyTransition #CircularEconomy