Axios

Three decades have passed since then-NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the Senate Energy committee and alerted the country to the arrival of global warming.

Why it matters: The predictions of the world's leading climate scientists have come true, with dire consequence for the planet.

Left unmitigated, rising temperatures from climate change will increase inequality and mortality rates in the U.S. by the end of the 21st century, a team of economists and climate scientists warn in a study published today. It's the first to project the impacts of climate change on individual counties in the U.S. Many of those predicted to be hit hardest are in fast-growing Arizona, Texas, and Florida.

Data: Hsiang, Kopp, Jina, Rising, et al. (2017); Map: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

One way we're each experiencing climate change today is in the form of extreme weather.

Why it matters: According to numerous studies, climate change is making some events, like heatwaves and heavy downpours, more intense and more likely to occur. These can be deadly, damaging and expensive.

Everyone who wants to keep pushing climate policies in the vacuum of Washington leadership should start thinking more about how to adapt to a warmer world instead of focusing most political will on ways to stop it.

Why it matters: The chances of reversing climate change are slim regardless of U.S. involvement in the Paris agreement. Countries, companies, U.S. states and cities and non-governmental organizations pursuing policies to address climate change should refocus their high-level political efforts on ways to prepare for the impacts that are already here and those still to come.

Major companies in the U.S. and worldwide are increasingly taking steps to lower the carbon footprint of what they produce, how they ship goods, and the energy they buy.

They're driven by market signals, government mandates, reputational interests, investor pressure and other factors. Here's a few snapshots of how some major industries are approaching the topic.

Big oil: A number of the world's biggest oil-and-gas companies are ramping up their investments in low-carbon technologies like renewables and electric vehicle infrastructure.

For instance . . .

• Shell: In late 2017 the company pledged to cut the "net carbon footprint of its energy products by around half by 2050," with an interim reduction goal of 20% by 2035.
• The company also said spending on its alternative energies division would reach $2 billion per year by 2020.
• And Shell is increasingly buying or investing in low-carbon energy firms, such as its 2017 purchase of the EV charging company NewMotion and recent investment in the battery storage firm Sonnen.
• BP: The company this year made a high-profile pledge to lower emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from its operations. Like Shell and some other majors — led by European firms — the company is boosting investment in renewables and batteries.
• Recent moves include a three-year, $200 million investment to gain a 43 percent stake in the solar power company Lightsource, and May's announcement that BP's venture arm is investing $20 million in the EV battery firm StoreDot.

Yes, but: These investments represent a very small part of the industry's overall spending. Consider that last year's Shell's overall capital spending was $24 billion.

And critics say the industry has, at best, a split personality, noting for instance that companies are members of trade associations that have lobbied against U.S. carbon emissions regulations.

Power purchasing: In late May the International Renewable Energy Agency, in its first global tally of corporate renewable power sourcing, said that last year companies bought around 465 terawatt-hours of renewable energy, such as from solar and wind facilities. This is almost the equivalent of France's power demand.

Big Tech has emerged as an important player in the trend. Apple and Google both say their operations — including power-thirsty data centers — are now powered completely by renewables, and companies like Microsoft and Amazon also have major initiatives.

Yes, but: Corporate electricity sourcing decisions are important but not, by themselves, creating a seismic shift in the world's power mix.

Consider that due to rising global electricity demand, largely in emerging economies, the share of fossil fuels in the worldwide power mix has remained constant over the last 20 years, despite the surge in renewables, a recent BP report on global energy data noted.

In particular, coal, which is the most carbon intensive energy source, has retained a 38 percent share in the worldwide electricity mix for the last two decades, BP's annual statistical review notes.

The bottom line: Absent stronger national policies worldwide, the role of the corporate moves, alongside sub-national actors like U.S. states, won't stem global emissions enough to prevent high levels of warming.

Go deeper:

• Read the rest of Axios' Deep Dive on climate change.
• The world is failing to hit its climate targets.

Global greenhouse emissions rose last year, an unwelcome development after they'd leveled off the 3 previous years and a clear call to action for the world’s long-term energy goals.

What’s next: Unprecedented advances in a broad range of clean and renewable energy technologies will be critical. Although some key technologies have seen widespread adoption, other areas like negative emission technologies and low-carbon industrial processes remain in need of sustained, targeted innovation. The following 5 technologies are among the most important, based on recent performance or potential contribution to climate goals.

President Trump’s recent comments on energy and climate change have been, well, imprecise. Here’s a handy glossary to make sure everyone’s got their semantics straight.

Why it matters: Because words matter! Especially sloppy ones in an amped-up media landscape where many don’t look past headlines. It’s important to get this stuff right when extreme voices are louder than ever and the president openly doubts mainstream science.

Despite the solid scientific consensus that human activity is driving climate change, acknowledgement of that across the political spectrum has remained largely unchanged for two decades.

Between the lines: President Trump and his supporters have expressed doubt in climate science findings, which may be influencing the opinions of conservative Republicans. However, when you combine Democrats with moderate Republicans, a majority of the American public agrees with the evidence.

In Texas — the heart of Trump country — the city of Georgetown runs on 100% renewable energy. Republican Mayor Dale Ross told Axios that the decision was “a no-brainer economically.”

Why it matters: President Trump and many Republican leaders are rolling back environmental measures related to climate change. But in Georgetown, “We put these silly national partisan politics aside,” said Ross. Climate change is one of the most divisive political topics, but cities like Georgetown are finding that renewable energy sources like hydropower, wind and solar may provide more financial stability than fossil fuels.