Dear Readers,
Welcome to The Green Place. This publication builds on the legacy left by Burt and continues a long-standing commitment to environmental reporting and thoughtful analysis. Each month, I’ll share insights at the intersection of climate science, business, policy, and data — with the goal of clarifying signal from noise.
A bit about me: I attended undergraduate at Wesleyan University and earned my masters in Sustainability Management at Columbia University. I love to keep active - I ran the NYC marathon in 2024.
My grandparents, Phillip and Alice Shabecoff, instilled in me an early awareness that environmental stewardship is not a trend, but a responsibility. That awareness deepened over time — shaped by science, by reporting, and by the generational urgency expressed by voices like Greta Thunberg’s reminder that “our house is on fire.”
We are living through a period of visible climate disruption. Summers are hotter. Wildfire seasons are longer. Precipitation patterns are more erratic. The physical system is under strain — and in some regions, approaching thresholds that scientists warn could trigger nonlinear change.
At the same time, the economic and political response to climate risk is entering a more complex phase. Corporate disclosures are evolving. Capital markets are recalibrating. Policy momentum is uneven. As explored in this month’s data section, corporate language around climate risk may be shifting in ways worth examining closely.
The Green Place newsletter will aim to approach these developments with clarity and discipline. Thank you for being part of the green revolution. Best,
Ted Shabecoff
We are no longer discussing isolated record months — we’re observing persistent elevation of the baseline. Global mean surface temperatures continue to sit meaningfully above the 1991–2020 baseline and have breached the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold relative to pre-industrial averages.
The numbers are now unambiguous. According to Copernicus, the EU’s climate monitoring service, 2025 ranked as the third-hottest year on record globally — behind only 2024 and 2023. More significantly, the three-year average from 2023 to 2025 is the first in recorded history to exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. What was once a threshold to be avoided has become, for now, a baseline. The eleven years from 2015 through 2025 are the eleven warmest years across all major climate datasets.
The Arctic is absorbing this heat at roughly four times the global average rate. In March 2025, Arctic sea ice reached its lowest winter maximum extent in 47 years of satellite observation — just 14.33 million square kilometers, a record low. The oldest and thickest Arctic ice, ice more than four years old, has declined by more than 95% since the 1980s. As reflective ice gives way to darker open ocean, more solar radiation is absorbed rather than reflected, driving a feedback loop with consequences that extend well beyond the polar regions.
The economic toll of this disruption is becoming harder to discount. The United States recorded 23 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2025, totaling $115 billion in damages — the third-highest year on record. The Los Angeles wildfires alone exceeded $60 billion in losses, making them the costliest wildfire event in U.S. history and nearly doubling the previous record set in 2018. Globally, the planet experienced 55 billion-dollar weather disasters over the course of the year. Climate Central notes that the annual average of such events has grown from roughly three per year in the 1980s to 19 per year over the past decade, with the last 15 consecutive years each recording above-average totals.
Beneath the surface, upper ocean heat content reached record highs in 2025 — a metric scientists regard as one of the most reliable indicators of long-term climate trajectory, since the oceans absorb more than 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases. That stored thermal energy has compounding consequences: it fuels more intense hurricanes, accelerates polar ice melt, drives sea level rise, and disrupts marine ecosystems in ways that cascade through global food systems. The physical system is accumulating stress faster than the policy and financial systems are responding to it ⛈
Capital markets are beginning to price climate risk more explicitly — even as political momentum for climate policy becomes less predictable.
In 2026, sustainable finance has reached a genuine inflection point. The momentum that carried green bond issuance to record highs in 2024 — exceeding $600 billion globally — has run headlong into a wave of policy reversals and institutional retrenchment that is reshaping how capital markets engage with climate risk.
In the United States, several major asset managers have quietly wound down or rebranded ESG-labeled fund products amid sustained political pressure and regulatory uncertainty. The SEC’s climate disclosure rule, finalized in 2024, remains in legal limbo following a series of court challenges, leaving public companies uncertain about their disclosure obligations heading into the 2026 proxy season.
Yet the underlying financial logic of climate risk has not changed. Physical risks — from flood damage to crop failure to insurance losses from extreme weather — are increasingly showing up in earnings reports and actuarial tables. Institutional investors with long-duration liabilities, including European pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, continue to incorporate climate scenarios into portfolio construction. Green bonds from supranational issuers remain actively subscribed.
The divergence between U.S. and European markets is sharpening. As Washington pulls back from mandatory disclosure frameworks, Brussels is recalibrating its own approach — as detailed in this month’s Policy section — but the foundational architecture of sustainable finance in Europe remains intact. For investors navigating these crosscurrents, the question is no longer whether climate constitutes a financial risk. It is who is still pricing it in. 🌎 💵 💶
In 2026, climate policy is being scaled back - not just in the United States but around the world. Let’s take a closer look at the policies shaping climate (in)action around the world.
United Staes: The End of the Endangerment Finding
On February 12 2026, the Trump administration directed the EPA to repeal the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, rescinding the foundational basis for regulation of greenhouse gases in the United States. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is legally required to regulate pollutants once it determines they endanger public health. By repealing the finding, the administration removed the scientific and legal basis that requires federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Environmental groups have filed suits and the administration moved quickly to have the matter litigated before the Supreme Court while Trump is still in office.
Europe: The CSDDD Rollback
In Europe, the EU’s corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) has been scaled back to simplify compliance for businesses following a compromise made between a coalition of far and centre right lawmakers in November 2025. The political agreement reduced the CSDDD's scope by 70%, limiting it to companies with over 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in turnover. The focus of due diligence obligations was also narrowed to direct business relationships, rather than the entire value chain. Proponents of the revisions to CSDDD argue that the revisions to CSDDD will reduce the administrative burden for European companies, while critics contend that the scaled back ruling will make it more difficult for the public to identify genuinely sustainable companies.
China - Carbon Markets and Industrial Strategy
China presents the most complex picture of any major emitter. Earlier this month, Premier Li Qiang announced a new five-year climate target pledging to cut carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 17% by 2030 — compared to a previous target of 18% that annual reports said was narrowly missed. President Xi Jinping's goal to peak emissions before 2030 will be "accomplished as planned," Li said.
Carbon emissions in China fell approximately 0.3% in 2025 — a first decline outside of economic contraction — driven largely by record renewable energy additions and declining demand in transport, power, and cement. China's national Emissions Trading Scheme also began expanding beyond the power sector to include steel and aluminium in late 2025 and early 2026.
But the picture has limits. China's new five-year plan did not set further limits on coal use Energy News, and in heavy industry, the main barriers to decarbonisation are not technological but persistent overcapacity and the lack of clear economic incentives for low-carbon production pathways.Critics have described the new targets as cautious given that China accounts for roughly 29% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Rest of World - Adaptation and Energy Security
The broader global picture in early 2026 is one of uneven progress. India has surpassed 50% non-fossil installed capacity ahead of schedule and is launching a compliance carbon market by mid-2026, but absolute emissions rose to approximately 4371 kt of CO2 in 2024 and coal still accounts for over 65% of electricity output. Japan posted a record emissions low in FY2023/24 but its current policies are projected to fall well short of its own 2030 NDC target, and its Green Transformation strategy continues to promote "clean coal" rather than a phase-out. In Latin America, COP30 in Brazil ended with the presidency committing to voluntary roadmaps on deforestation and fossil fuels — but without binding commitments from other nations. Africa, which contributes only 2–3% of global emissions, enters 2026 facing accelerating climate impacts — floods across Southern Africa, drought in the Sahel — while the Loss and Damage Fund begins operations with just $250 million, far short of what the continent needs.
The Bigger Picture
The global picture in early 2026 is one of divergence. The world's two largest historical emitters — the U.S. and EU — are walking back regulatory frameworks. China is moving forward but cautiously, prioritizing economic stability over accelerated decarbonisation. India and Japan are posting real emissions progress while remaining structurally dependent on coal. And the countries least responsible for the climate crisis — particularly across Africa — are being asked to build resilience with inadequate international support. COP31 in Türkiye later this year will be the next major test of whether any of this divergence can be arrested. 🌍 🇹🇷
Each month, this section presents a data-driven question alongside a methodology for answering it. The goal is to make the analysis transparent and replicable — not just conclusions, but the reasoning behind them.
This month's question: are public companies shifting how they talk about climate risk in their annual filings — and if so, in what direction? 2026 has brought significant regulatory rollbacks affecting corporate climate disclosure in both the U.S. and Europe. If companies are responding to reduced regulatory pressure, we might expect climate risk language to become less prominent. Or we might see companies doubling down on voluntary disclosure as a signal to long-term investors. The direction is genuinely uncertain. That's what makes this worth measuring.
What the Data Shows
The trend is clear. Climate disclosure expanded rapidly after 2020. Among large U.S. companies, references to climate-related risks and transition dynamics accelerated notably after that year, reflecting both rising investor expectations and the expansion of climate-related regulatory frameworks. The chart above illustrates this shift: climate-related language in major corporate filings rose sharply between 2021 and 2023 before stabilising at a higher baseline. That trajectory suggests climate disclosure has become embedded in corporate reporting practices — which makes any reversal in 2026 easier to detect. Whether that upward trajectory holds amid growing political and regulatory pushback will be an important signal of whether disclosure norms are being driven primarily by regulation or by market expectations.
To read the full historical analysis: The Evolution in Climate Risk Disclosure: Analysis 2015–2023 🔍
The Method
Using a sample of S&P 500 10-K annual reports filed between January and March 2026 scraped from the SEC EDGAR API, and comparing to equivalent filings from 2024 and 2025, I track the per-10,000-word frequency of six key terms: "climate risk," "transition risk," "physical risk," "Scope 3," "net zero," and "carbon pricing." A meaningful decline across multiple terms would suggest companies are quietly pulling back on voluntary climate language. Stability or growth would suggest the opposite — that institutional investor expectations are keeping disclosure norms in place despite regulatory retreat.
Frequency alone isn't the full picture. Context matters — a company citing "climate risk" to describe how it is actively managing exposure reads very differently from one citing it to note that a regulation has been repealed. Where possible, the analysis flags directional sentiment around each term's usage.
What to Watch
Early signals from Q4 2025 earnings calls suggest some companies in carbon-intensive industries are already softening their voluntary climate commitments. That tone shift has shown up in legally binding 10-K disclosures — which carry different legal and reputational consequences than investor presentations. Methodology and data has been made available for readers who want to replicate or extend the work.
Thank you for reading the inaugural issue of The Green Place. This newsletter exists because climate change is no longer just an environmental story — it is an economic story, a policy story, a data story, and increasingly, a story about who holds power and how they use it. Our goal is to track that story with rigor and without agenda: presenting what is happening, what the data shows, and what questions remain genuinely open.
Each month, Policy Watch will document the regulatory shifts shaping the green economy. The Data Science Spotlight will publish transparent, replicable analysis — not just conclusions. And over time, we'll build a resource that readers can return to, interrogate, and extend with their own work.
If you found this useful, consider sharing it with a colleague. And if something here sparked a question, a disagreement, or an idea for future analysis — we'd genuinely like to hear it. And visit greenplace.earth to share your own insights and perspectives on the green revolution. 🙃 🌳