Even “modest” action to limit climate change could help prevent the most extreme water-shortage scenarios facing Asia by the year 2050, according to a new study led by MIT researchers.

Fossil fuel stocks have long been a safe financial bet. With price rises projected until 2040* and governments prevaricating or rowing back on the Paris Agreement, investor confidence is set to remain high.

Intensifying river floods could lead to regional production losses worldwide caused by global warming. This might not only hamper local economies around the globe – the effects might also propagate through the global network of trade and supply chains, a study now published in Nature Climate Change shows. It is the first to assess this effect for flooding on a global scale, using a newly developed dynamic economic model. It finds that economic flood damages in China, which could, without further adaption, increase by 80 percent within the next 20 years, might also affect EU and US industries. The US economy might be specifically vulnerable due to its unbalanced trade relation with China. Contrary to US president Trump’s current tariff sanctions, the study suggests that building stronger and thus more balanced trade relations might be a useful strategy to mitigate economic losses caused by intensifying weather extremes.

You’ve got a full hour until your next meeting. But you probably won’t make the most of that time, new research suggests.

Water is a systemic risk to investors, as in many parts of the United States and other areas of the world this precious resource is in danger. Investors and market players should be deepening their research and investment process to tackle water risks, often hidden in holdings across all asset classes. As investors, how do we first protect our clients from these risks, and how do we position these same clients to benefit from the growth opportunities in companies that are providing innovative systems, products and services to solve water quantity, quality and resilience issues?

If you've ever noticed yourself thinking about the timing of a plan in two opposing ways – something that feels longer off than your actual time calculation -- you’re on to something. New research shows our different ways of estimating time don't necessarily move in lock-step.

Consider these three recent developments: California emerged from drought in April 2017, fewer companies reported impacts associated with water scarcity[1], and the average freshwater intensity of companies in the MSCI ACWI Index dropped by 15 percent between 2015 and 2016[2]. While these are positive short term signals for investors concerned with water scarcity, 2017 was also the most costly in U.S. history for natural disasters[3]. This underscored the thinking behind a key trend that MSCI ESG Research identified in the beginning of 2017[4]: institutional investors are shifting their portfolio analysis from the measurement of regulatory risks, such as the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, to physical risks, such as exposure to coastal flooding along the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The protection of our shared environment has long been among government’s most fundamental responsibilities. Ancient Rome’s Code of Justinian, one of the first efforts at constitutional governance, guaranteed to all citizens the use of the “public trust” or “commons” — those shared resources that cannot be reduced to private property, including the air, water, forests and fisheries. Throughout Western history, the first acts of tyrants have invariably included efforts to deliver public-trust assets into private hands. During the Dark Ages, when Roman law broke down in England, King John attempted to sell off the country’s fisheries, place navigational tolls on England’s rivers, and seize its woodlands and game animals. Enraged at that theft of public-trust assets, England’s people confronted John at Runnymede in 1215, forcing him to sign the Magna Carta. That seminal democratic document included a powerful articulation of the principle that the commons of water, fisheries and woodland were not commodities to be bartered away by a prince, but the rightful property of all citizens.

A new study led by the University of Stirling highlights improvements in the way conflicts between wildlife conservation and farming are managed worldwide.

Wind and solar power could generate most but not all electricity in the United States, according to an analysis of 36 years of weather data by Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira, and three Carnegie-affiliated energy experts: Matthew Shaner, Steven Davis (of University of California Irvine), and Nathan Lewis (of Caltech).