WELCOME TO THE ADEC INNOVATIONS BLOG

There is a lot of confusion between cap and trade and a carbon tax. More governments are implementing one or the other to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the cost of severe weather events, as doing nothing about climate change is becoming unaffordable. This post explains their differences, and why cap and trade is the better option – hands down.

The CDP response period may be over for this year, but it is hardly the time to kick back and relax just yet. Every organization should be thinking about planning and implementing the carbon management activities, strategies, actions, and policies that define your approach to environmental sustainability for 2019—and the years to come.

In 2018, California experienced some of the largest wildfires in its history. The Mendocino Complex Fire, the biggest of several devastating fires that struck the state this summer, scorched more than 459,000 acres and continued burning for over a month. Similarly disastrous wildfires have sprung up across the globe this year, including in Canada, Greece, and Australia. The evidence is clear that climate change is altering the frequency and extent of wildfires worldwide. In a warmer world, wildfires are becoming larger, harder to control, and more destructive.

One of the first actions the new Conservative government of Ontario took was to start dismantling the cap-and-trade program—an electoral promise made by Premier Ford when he interchangeably called the program a "carbon tax." A C&T program is in fact an economic policy with a controlled carbon market—and not a carbon tax. Since Mr. Ford never produced a campaign platform, there has not been a thorough examination of this action in terms of climate change preparedness for the province, nor the total cost to dismantle it. There was, however, a hastily produced slide deck presented to the C&T stakeholders regarding their termination costs. The way the Ford government makes CAD$3.88 billion disappear into a $5 million pay-out deserves further examination.

Last month, we looked at different ways the Philippines has worked to build sustainable practices and climate change resiliency. As an island nation, the Philippines is particularly susceptible to the effects of global climate change, and their example highlights the importance of understanding the long-term environmental and economic benefits of sustainability.

Today, we will look at three other examples of how global entities are working toward broader sustainability objectives and building climate resiliency—from New York to the Maldives.

Particularly for those living or working in urban areas, rush-hour gridlock is one of the most obvious forms of environmental degradation in our everyday lives. What if more people were able to work from home, and fewer workers were commuting every day as a result? In more ways than one, this type of shift could greatly reduce the overall environmental impact of cities and potentially improve the lives of workers across the globe.

Global climate change is heavily disrupting many ecosystems across the world. While some countries fail to acknowledge the importance and urgency of the matter, others are working to prioritize climate change adaptation and resiliency in their policy and planning goals. As it is particularly threatened by global climate change due to its status as one of the world’s largest archipelago nations, the Philippines has made great strides to build global climate change resiliency.

When last we spoke, we covered three simple steps you can take to reduce the amount of waste produced in the home: starting a home garden, using an eco-bag, and shopping at farmers’ markets and co-ops. Though small, these actions can help reduce methane emissions, plastic waste, and pollution. Because trash that makes its way into the environment can do so much harm—and a startling 79% of all plastics are not recycled and end up in landfills or in the natural environment—one of the simplest ways to do your part is to avoid creating waste in the first place.