There is so much data about how climate change is affecting us that it is overwhelming. I’ve created a website climate.sh to start tracking an initial set of KPIs, however rough it may be. The initial data was just public companies that are actively causing climate change. I used this metric, predominantly coal and oil companies, because the change in their valuation seems to be an excellent way to correspond to climate action. If they go down, then climate action is going well.
However, I’ve only looked at the KPI from a “less of that” mindset. How do we have less of that? Essentially, the metrics I have is an output metric. I haven’t proposed the input metric.
So I’ve been trying to think about the input metrics. The input metric, I believe, is a total investment into renewables and zero-carbon energy. I know there is a whole host of other factors into climate change that needs resolution. Solving for the 60% case seems to be zero-carbon energy.
So what are the input metrics? I think there should be two:
- Total renewable / zero-carbon energy used by country.
- Investments in zero-carbon projects around the world.
I’m trying to gauge how to think about renewables per country. Some countries are entirely dependent on oil. For example, Antigua and Barbuda get 99% of their energy from oil. However, their population is only about 98,000. Should renewable projects be bottom-up or top-down? Should the rich countries change first then move to poor countries, or should the poor countries be helped first, so they avoid the problems of the rich countries?
The reason for this is that it affects how to look at data. If we are to move bottom-up, the goal would be to get as many countries to renewables as possible making overall trends look better. But if we do top rich to poor, then the data changes to be more skewed.
Maybe the better KPI is to look at renewables as a percent of the population may be a better number. Still need to explore…