As CEO of the Climate Solutions Prize, I meet founders, researchers and entrepreneurs from across Canada who are forging technologies that are not only cleaner, but better: superior products, superior economics and superior ways of solving entrenched problems.

They are not waiting for permission. They are already building the solutions the world demands. The next era of climate action will not be led by slogans. It will be led by builders.

Canada needs more of them. But we also have more of them than most people realize, and too often we fail to help them get from breakthrough to scale.

Opalia in Montreal has developed a way to produce real milk from mammary cells, without the cow and without the methane. In Kingston, Ontario, RXN Hub is building Canada’s connective infrastructure for green chemistry commercialization, providing the modular lab space, piloting bays and technical validation that climate ventures need. Dispersa, based in Toronto, has created biodegradable chemicals derived from wood waste that replace petrochemicals in cleaning and industrial products, cutting both toxicity and carbon footprint.

These are not concepts in search of a market. They are proven technologies, validated by independent experts, tackling urgent challenges across food systems, oceans and the built environment.

The bottleneck lies in moving solutions from validation to deployment, at pace. The issue is not talent; it is risk aversion. Too many promising technologies stall between proof of concept and market because our funding ecosystem remains too rigid and too slow at the critical stages. We need agile mechanisms to de-risk innovation in the eyes of investors, customers and strategic partners.

De-risking the path from validation to scale

What does connective infrastructure look like in practice? It starts with rigorous, independent validation: technical due diligence, third-party testing and feasibility assessment that de-risks breakthrough innovation for investors, customers and strategic partners.

This requires structured pathways where capital, innovation and government converge, not once a year, but as a permanent operating rhythm within Canada’s climate ecosystem. Initiatives like the Climate Solutions Prize are bridging that gap across seven innovation tracks, from energy to water to agriculture to the built environment.

The countries that lead the next economy will be the ones that not only invent breakthrough technologies but also create the fastest path from invention to adoption.

– Galith Levy, CEO, Climate Solutions Prize

The evidence suggests that the model works. When catalytic capital meets validated innovation at the right inflection point, investment follows. More than $12 million in prize funding has helped unlock more than $111 million in subsequent capital. That ratio reveals something critical: for many climate ventures, the barrier is not the calibre of the technology. It is the confidence gap, the hesitation – among investors, customers and partners – to be first to deploy a validated technology at commercial scale. That is where most climate ventures lose momentum.

A pragmatic path forward

I often hear climate innovation framed as a trade-off: growth versus responsibility, economy versus environment. I see it differently. The most compelling solutions I encounter are not the ones that ask the market to make a sacrifice. They are the ones that win because they are simply better: cheaper, faster, cleaner, more resilient or more profitable.

The countries that lead the next economy will be the ones that not only invent breakthrough technologies but also create the fastest path from invention to adoption. Canada has more invention than we often recognize. Our weakness is what comes next. Too many promising technologies stall between proof and scale because they cannot secure a demonstration project or attract the catalytic capital needed to move from a promising idea to a real industry. The countries that win will be the ones that solve that challenge fastest and figure out what risks are worth taking. That is the real race now.

RELATED STORIES

Quebec must move fast to retain its clean-power advantage

A clash over natural gas is brewing as Canada readies more action on green investing

Europe’s green retreat risks damaging its own businesses

What Canada lacks is not science, entrepreneurs or capital. It lacks a system built for speed.

The point is not innovation for its own sake. It is innovation that succeeds on its own economic merit and delivers measurable impact. What we need now is the willingness to move faster, take smarter risks and build the connective infrastructure that gets the right capital to the right technologies at the right moment.

This is not a uniquely Canadian challenge. But Canada has an opportunity few countries do: world-class research, extraordinary founders, and growing pools of capital looking for credible, high-impact opportunities.

The innovators are already here. The question is whether Canada will move fast enough to let them win.

Galith Levy is the CEO and co-founder of the Climate Solutions Prize. The 2026 Climate Solutions Prize Festival takes place June 8 and 9 in Montreal. For more information: climatesolutionsprize.com/2026festival.

The post Canada’s climate innovators need a faster path to market appeared first on Corporate Knights.

But instead of using energy to cool their servers, some companies are trying to recover heat and put it to use. “What we try to do,” says Sacha van Geffen, a lead engineer at Leafcloud, “is actually see if we can place some of those compute resources that generate a lot of heat really close to a place where heat is needed.”

Leafcloud is an Amsterdam-based cloud services company that turns waste heat into warm showers through a distributed network of servers, or “leaf sites.” To do this, Leafcloud uses off-the-shelf components to build heat-waste-recovery systems inside the technical rooms of facilities like large apartment complexes, swimming pools or retirement homes, van Geffen says. The heat captured from the servers is used to produce hot water for the building.

Leafcloud isn’t the only company putting heat waste to work. U.K. company Heata offers a similar service to individual homeowners. The 2025 Paris Olympics pool was partially heated from data-centre servers run by the company Equinix. In Brooklyn, Bathhouse uses waste heat from Bitcoin mining rigs to warm its spa pools. Nexalus in Ireland harnesses heat waste to improve efficiency and lower data-centre energy consumption.

Heat waste from computing workloads is considered low-grade heat, meaning anything less than 100°C. “With low temperature grades,” says Amin Mohammadi, a PhD candidate at Simon Fraser University’s Laboratory for Alternative Energy Conversion, “converting that energy to thermal energy or cooling energy would be the best option that you have.” In other words, it’s too gentle to be converted to electricity such as with steam from a boiler, but with the help of heat pumps, it’s perfect for making a hot shower or keeping interiors toasty on a cold day. 

There are data centres and centralized district heating systems working together, too, such as Stockholm Exergi or Denmark’s Fjernvarme Fyn. This application could play an important role in heat-waste recovery from the growing demand for computing capacity. A recent Leafcloud white paper outlined that different thermal outputs could be optimized for different applications: high-performance computing for higher heat-waste temperatures, such as 60°C to 80°C, could be sent to district heating, whereas standard servers that produce temperatures in the 40°C to 60°C range could be used for building heat. 

The pieces are already in place to start making a difference. Leafcloud and other companies can capture heat waste now and without complex infrastructure that would otherwise take years to build out, such as constructing a data centre or retrofitting pipe systems for larger-scale municipal heating. By placing the heat source close to where it will be used, overall efficiency is improved, because it avoids the energy loss that occurs when heat has to move through a large system, Mohammadi says. 

In addition to heat-waste recovery, van Geffen says that Leafcloud’s distributed server system has other benefits. Using residual heat onsite not only reduces the reliance on other energy sources needed to heat water, such as natural gas; it also reduces costs. In a world where our data is so often controlled by secretive corporations, installing local servers in basements in Europe offers security and control, van Geffen says: “What we are offering is sovereign data storage, where the heat is also put to a good use.”

The post Companies are finding creative ways to use heat from data centres appeared first on Corporate Knights.

There is much evidence to justify this sentiment. Case in point: his pick for energy secretary, oil wildcatter Chris Wright, said last year, “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition, either.” But what if a different outcome is possible?

To explore this question in a clear-eyed way, two things matter: how much can a president tip the scale on climate solutions, and in which direction will it tip?

Let’s follow the money: the United States accounts for 15% of global investments in climate solutions, so 85% of the action is elsewhere (mostly China).

Download research brief from Corporate Knights: Sustainability transition gains momentum

Also, don’t forget that while the executive branch of the U.S. government can be a powerful bully pulpit, there are other influential actors, including the private sector, state and local governments, and civil society.

It’s also worth reviewing Trump 1.0.

Despite Trump’s promises to “bring back coal,” a record 50 coal plants were shuttered during his first term, plus another 51 announcements of closures as the economics of coal went into the toilet.

In terms of U.S. energy investments, green energy and fossil fuels ballooned across the board during Biden’s presidency, but green energy as a proportion of total energy investments were not that much different than in Trump’s time (55% versus 51% in each of their last years in office).

President Trump 2.0 is not a blanket negative and could be an inadvertent net positive on the sway he holds over the world’s march toward a climate solutions economy.

  – Toby Heaps, Publisher, Corporate Knights

Many people still believe that the primary factors driving demand for green power and electric cars are politically driven subsidies, but that is no longer the case. Economic logic is now the primary driver. Green power and electric cars have become a lot cheaper to the point where they are now better bargains than their fossil fuel counterparts – without subsidies. Solar and wind combined with battery power are now cheaper than fossil fuels in most cases.

Despite all the market imperfections, for every $1 invested in fossil fuels globally, $2 is now invested in clean energy, while electric or hybrid cars now account for more than half of new cars sold in China.

Three factors that matter most to climate solutions

There are a few important elements to keep in mind when evaluating the potential impact of Trump’s presidency.

1. Red tape: 2,500 gigawatts of green energy in the United States is in limbo waiting for grid connection permits, roughly double the entire installed electricity capacity.

2. Interest rates: They represent up to 40% of renewable energy costs when rates are high.

3. Oil prices: When the price of oil goes up, it increases the earnings, economic clout and political power of oil and gas companies.

In other words, if you have less red tape to tangle up green energy projects, lower costs of capital and lower oil prices (so big oil has less cash in its jeans to tip the political scales), then you get more climate solutions deployed.

And there is a wild card this time: Elon Musk, who recently reiterated his long-standing mission to achieve national and individual energy independence underpinned by a vertically integrated sustainable-energy ecosystem.

Three factors that may work in favour of clean power

Trump’s impact on renewables won’t be all negative, for several reasons:

1. Musk’s new role in the White House overseeing a vast deregulation agenda will not be all bad news for the environment. Fossil fuel projects will be green-lit faster, but renewables will benefit too, and we already know they have the cost-competitiveness to be market winners.

2. Trump loves low interest rates (and he is happy to twist the Fed’s arm as required) because they buoy stock markets (potential inflationary effects of tariffs be damned).

3. Trump’s obsession with cheap gas contributed to cutting the valuation of oil and gas companies in half during his first term, a stark contrast to the 100% increase we saw during Biden’s presidency.

Bottom line for climate action: president Trump 2.0 is not a blanket negative and could be an inadvertent net positive on the sway he holds over the world’s march toward a climate solutions economy.

If you believe in economic logic, the takeaway is that the right time to go all in on the energy transition was yesterday. The second-best time is now, and that’s true no matter who’s president of the United States.

Toby Heaps is co-founder and publisher of Corporate Knights. 

The post Trump 2.0 could have some unintended upsides for the energy transition appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Developed by Prince William and biologist and broadcaster David Attenborough four years ago as a way to build excitement (and investor attention) around planet-saving ideas, the Earthshot Prize gives five environmental innovators £1 million each to grow their vision and impact. The A-list celebs, the televised “green carpet” preshow and the Shark Tank–level cash prizes may be straight out of Hollywood, but the event’s true objective is all business. Not just the five winners, but all 15 finalists become Earthshot “fellows” – eligible to draw on ongoing advisory services and a global funding platform designed to accelerate further growth.

As the prince, wearing white biodegradable sneakers, told the audience in Cape Town, it was a trip to Namibia in 2018 to study the illegal wildlife trade that helped him recognize “the power of how innovative, positive solutions to environmental problems could drive transformative change for humans and nature.”

This year’s winners were a mix of scrappy grassroots groups, start-ups and multinational deal-makers. In the “Clean Our Air” category, the winner was the youth-led advocacy group Green Africa Youth Organization (GAYO), based in Accra, Ghana. In communities where inadequate waste-management systems mean that most garbage is simply burned – including mountains of car tires and electronic waste – GAYO is promoting the no-waste movement. Through education and innovation, and savvy lobbying, GAYO has set up youth-run sorting centres where trash is separated and reused, reducing pollution while creating more than 700 jobs. GAYO is also involved in sustainable agriculture, disaster risk reduction and renewable energy. With a team of 150 employees in four countries, founder Desmond Alugnoa says that “the aim is to create a sustainable circular economy across Africa.” In addition to its 150 employees, GAYO has trained more than 5,000 people to upcycle waste and make a living by selling products such as compost and charcoal briquettes.

The Altyn Dala Conservation Initiative in Kazakhstan set out to preserve the “Golden Steppe,” the grassy plains of central Asia. Overgrazing, agriculture, a shifting climate, poaching and disease have affected many species in this crucial migration corridor, but none more than the saiga antelope, whose numbers dipped from the millions to as few as 20,000 in 2003. By restoring and protecting five million hectares and using ranger teams and aerial patrols to combat poaching, Altyn Dala has helped the saiga population bounce back to 2.8 million. Its work has also resulted in the formation of new national parks and a burgeoning ecotourism industry. The group plans to put its prize money toward doing the same for kulan (wild asses), ertagy (wild Przewalski’s horses) and steppe eagles.

Some Earthshot Prize winners are more global in scope, including the multinational organization that helped secure the “30×30” target, calling for the effective protection and management of 30% of the world’s land and water by 2030, signed by delegates of the 2022 UN biodiversity conference in Montreal. Co-chaired by Costa Rica and France, the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People (HAC for N&P) gives governments the tools they need to protect more spaces, write their commitments into law and overcome financial and technical barriers to action. HAC for N&P says its efforts have helped 50 member countries enact or strengthen conservation laws. The organization puts special emphasis on protecting ocean waters, since member countries are further ahead on designating conservation lands than on protecting marine ecosystems – which helped HAC for N&P secure Earthshot’s “Revive Our Oceans” award.

RELATED:

Don‘t let climate grief and despair defeat climate solutions

How AI is helping NotCo cook up a plant-based takeover of Big Food

Ram Amar’s ‘crazy’ plan to store a gigaton of carbon at the bottom of the Black Sea

The winner of the “Build a Waste-Free World” prize was Nairobi-based Keep IT Cool (KIC), whose sustainable refrigeration system helps underserved smallholder fishers in Kenya and Uganda reduce spoilage and increase their revenues. KIC works with fishing cooperatives on Lake Victoria and the desert Lake Turkana, where fishers can take two days to collect a catch big enough to transport to market. At fish landing points, KIC now provides solar-powered icemakers and cold-storage units that have cut spoilage and food waste by 98%.

The “Fix Our Climate” finalist was Advanced Thermovoltaic Systems (ATS) of Fort Collins, Colorado, which has developed a simple, safe process to help heavy industries turn waste heat into electricity. Founder Kelly Adams says that current turbine-based recovery systems capture only 40% of waste heat; his company’s container-sized units use modern materials technology to generate electricity from even low levels of heat. What’s more, they use no moving parts, require little maintenance and can be run from an iPhone. ATS hopes to be operational in more than 100 plant sites by 2030, saving 3.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The post Earthshot Prize brings the glam to planet-saving solutions appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The reaction is utterly understandable when you can taste climate change in the back of your throat. But it risks drowning out some essential truths that have to guide every step we take in response to this global emergency:

The last chapters of this story have not yet been written.

We still have the power to write them.

And the only way to guarantee that we lose this battle of our lifetimes is if we assume it’s already lost.

The harsh truth is that we’ve known for decades that this moment would come. $200 million buys a lot of misleading PR and backroom arm-twisting, and that’s what fossil companies have spent on climate delay and denial since they turned their backs on their own early climate research around 1984, according to Fire Weather author John Vaillant.

So it was foreseeable, foreseen, and pretty much inevitable that we would reach this point. The crisis is obvious, and obviously terrifying. The solutions are gaining ground, but not yet quickly or widely enough. And the day-to-day grind is getting less aspirational and a whole lot more granular as governments, institutions, businesses, and financiers move from the big-picture “what” of declaring a climate emergency to the detailed “how” of delivering on the transition.

While that tough and necessary work gets done, we can’t let the panic set us back. Particularly when the response is to just shout louder, block more rush hour traffic with street protests, or splash more pink paint on Group of Seven artwork or woolly mammoth statues. Those desperation moves only drive climate concern and action farther out to the margins, at just the moment when climate solutions are moving to the mainstream.

Building the Future Brick by Brick

Part of the disconnect is that the solutions we need almost always start out smaller and less dramatic than anything that speaks to the immediacy of a cascading, global crisis.

The incremental action items that eventually lead to big wins, then scale up into even bigger transformations, aren’t nearly as conspicuous as a raging wildfire travelling an average 23 kilometres per hour.

But unless we want to put our faith in megaproject pipe dreams like carbon capture and storage and small modular nuclear reactors, the practical wins we need will have to combine the occasional, big political breakthrough with small but significant gains that don’t initially sound like much to celebrate.

Like a wastewater energy transfer system that cuts a hospital’s energy for heating and cooling by 90% and its climate pollution by 250,000 tonnes—so that the idea will only show up in a big-picture emissions reduction scenario when it’s been repeated and adapted in dozens or hundreds of other local projects.

Or an energy management software that allows a big high rise to accommodate up to four times as many electric vehicle chargers before it has to upgrade its utility connection, opening a door for those EVs to deliver lifesaving backup power in the next grid emergency.

Or the City of Nanaimo banning gas as a primary heating source in new homes as of July, 2024.

Or a court case where the judge doesn’t rule against the Ontario government’s active, ideologically-driven hostility to climate action and renewable energy development, but still affirms that seven youth plaintiffs are entitled to Constitutional protection of their climate rights.

Or a South Korean automaker that funds a non-profit to collect 55 tons of plastic waste from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, announcing plans to reuse the material in its upcoming line of EVs.

A Run of Bigger Wins

The bigger wins are fewer and farther between, but even there, we’ve been on a pretty good run lately.

Canada became the first G20 country to mostly ban fossil fuel subsidies and released a solid set of clean electricity regulations, with a draft fossil fuel emissions cap due this fall.

In a binding referendum two weeks ago, Ecuadorans voted against oil drilling in a protected area in the Amazon that’s home to two uncontacted tribes and serves as a biodiversity hotspot.

Climate youth won a landmark court case in Montana that could have implications for Canada.

California, which has begun styling itself the world’s fourth-biggest economy, has just endorsed the call for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Colombia joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance.

Global renewable energy investment is set to hit $1.7 trillion this year, outstripping fossil spending for the fourth year in a row.

None of these advances have been easy or perfect. All of them combined won’t be enough to stop the next wildfire or clear a 1.6-million-square-kilometre garbage patch. Not yet. We need much more of the same, and we need it yesterday. We should have been in this place five or 20 or 30 years ago, and there’s no reason it couldn’t and shouldn’t have happened.

But to get the speed and depth of change that the climate emergency demands, we first had to reach the threshold where we are right now. And then the next. We needn’t have waited (fossil companies and their allies needn’t have forced us to wait) until multiple climate tipping points were on the immediate horizon. But finally, so much of the momentum is increasingly in our favour. And that means we have two choices that are not mutually exclusive.

We can rage, grieve, mourn, and track down the resources we need to cope with a devastating global emergency. I’m guessing that most of us have been there from time to time.

And then we have to pick ourselves up and get back to work. Keep on building wins, big and small. And make a habit of listening for the investors, policy-makers, practitioners, and other allies outside the “bubble” who may not spend every day fretting about climate change, but still have their own, essential part to play in achieving faster, deeper carbon cuts.

Stop Shouting, Start Connecting

This line of thinking translates into a somewhat different agenda for climate hawks.

Because shouting indiscriminately at people who aren’t already out there alongside us, working all-out on the climate emergency, is not one of our options. Not if we want to build a wider, louder voice for climate action and solutions, rather than painting ourselves into a self-righteous (and, these days, pink-hued) corner.

A week rarely goes by without the some variant on the same language popping up in email, in our comments section, or on social media: What will it take for people to wake up??

That question is almost always misplaced.

There’s ample evidence in public opinion polls that people in Canada largely understand that we’re in a climate emergency and want something done about it. We also know that a precarious economy, with some of that precarity driven by climate change itself, rips away the time, attention, and dollars that many households would need to put climate solutions or emission reductions at the centre of their day-to-day thinking or action.

So—if we really mean it (and I’m convinced that most of us do) when we talk about climate solutions that leave no one behind, our strategies and messaging should sound like it.

Sending Allies to the Sidelines?

Pointing out that fare-free transit makes it easier and more affordable to get to and from work is probably a more widely appealing message than leading with the emission reductions that also result. But either of those benefits is a whole lot more constructive than blocking traffic to disrupt “business as usual” and get commuters to somehow, magically, abandon the cars they depend on, often for reasons that are far beyond their control.

Tossing washable, pink paint on works of art generates coverage, though the logic is a lot less obvious than if the target were an oil and gas AGM or a fossil-friendly bank. But are the pink paint headlines building a wider climate community or sending potential allies and supporters screaming to the sidelines?

The academic theory behind the protests holds that no non-violent movement has ever failed if it managed to engage 3.5% of the population. But I’ve always wondered—if the climate community can aim to connect that widely while operating on a shoestring, how long will it take for the fossil industry with its various faux-grassroot offshoots to mobilize its own 3.5%? I fear that question may have begun to answer itself in last year’s convoy occupation in Ottawa, and more recently in the smaller convoy-style protests against wildfire restrictions in Shuswap, British Columbia and Yellowknife.

The brutal reality is that, sooner or later, the traffic disruptions and pink paint protests will help drive up despair over the very crisis they’re meant to solve. Sooner, if they convince people farther outside the climate bubble that the are’s no other way to take action, or later, when the protests themselves fail to deliver as promised. If that’s right, it means that shouting at people who are already struggling with everyday life, rather than calling them in to a combined agenda of climate solutions, a fossil fuel phaseout, and social equity and justice, is nothing short of malpractice.

None of which should stop any of us from gearing up and spreading the word for Global Climate Strike 2023 on September 15. But maybe we should think about leaving the pink paint at home?

Mitchell Beer is the publisher of the Energy Mix.

This article was first published in The Energy Mix Weekender. You can read the original here.

The post Don‘t let climate grief and despair defeat climate solutions appeared first on Corporate Knights.

We are not too late to safeguard a future worth living in. Every second and fraction of a degree matters.

The solutions to climate change are taking off. A new growth story is beginning. Over the next five years, the world will meet more than half the tipping points for green tech, according to British economist Nicholas Stern, meaning we’re off to the races.

But it will take a quantum leap in climate action to speed things up or global heating will start a fire that sucks all the oxygen up.

If we listen to the fat cats from the oil sector bulging with profits like never before (ExxonMobil should put Vladimir Putin on its Christmas card list): oil is prosperity; it is unrealistic to turn off the taps overnight. Our energy bills would go through the roof, making life even less affordable. Of course, we need to address climate change, but nice and slow, by 2050 or so. While some environmentalists preach that the only option is to atone for our sins, sacrificing our quality of life, and to stop having kids. They both sound out to lunch to me.

First off, fossil fuels as an asset class are like swampland in Florida. It might be a banner year for oil company profits, but make no mistake: oil is a dog – and not a good one. We recently analyzed 14 of Canada’s largest pension funds to see how oil and gas stocks had contributed to their returns over the past 10 years. In every case, they were a substantial drag, draining tens of billions of dollars from people’s retirement accounts, even accounting for the record profits the oil and gas stocks had in 2022 because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

When you look at the stock market performance of the 74 industries that make up the entire economy over the 10 years leading up to the end of 2022, oil and gas stock returns were bottom of the barrel, coming in at number 62. And with electrification about to reduce global oil consumption by millions of barrels per day, the smart money is not betting on the black stuff. Contrast this with the returns of the 430 “green flag” stocks (with a market value of more than US$16 trillion) Corporate Knights tracks, which delivered a cumulative 10-year return of 368% – quadruple what oil and gas managed over the same period.

We know that we have the tools to do it, and that we can move much faster than almost anyone thinks is possible (multibillion-dollar energy companies like Ørsted and Enel have made complete U-turns in half a decade that were supposed to take 30 years).

The economic solutions to global heating are growing faster than the problems. We are replacing cows, coal and cars with plant protein, green power and electric vehicles (including bikes).

We also know that switching out polluting problems for emissions-free solutions is quite often cheaper and better, with fewer moving parts.

Green is not a luxury good. To settle for anything less would be uncivilized. As my six-year-old son, Zia, recently said, “An electric car shouald be $5,000 to $20,000 or else I am telling the boss to fire himself and I will do it myself.”

In Canada for instance, average household energy bills will be lower in 2050 thanks to the transition away from fossil fuels, the Canadian Climate Institute estimates. Consider that an average Canadian driving around 15,000 kilometres will pay about $2,000 a year for gas (ignoring the price spikes seen in 2022) but could recharge an electric vehicle for $350 a year for the same mileage.

Corporate Knights research director Ralph Torrie estimates that aggressively embracing electric vehicles and energy-efficient smart buildings would generate energy savings of $32 billion per year by 2030. That works out to $2,091 for every Canadian household (all 15.3 million of them), not to mention the deflationary benefits of removing 1.5% of GDP costs from our economy permanently.

In short, our world needs climate action on all fronts – it starts by electrifying everything, everywhere, all at once (to borrow the phrase from this year’s big Oscar winner).

Every country, every company and everyone must be part of the solution.

As UN Secretary-General António Guterres recently emphasized, “Demanding others move first only ensures humanity comes last. We have never been better equipped to solve the climate challenge – but we must move into warp-speed climate action now.”

The post Editor’s note: Every country, every company and everyone must work to solve the climate crisis appeared first on Corporate Knights.