Search
266 items found for ""
Blog Posts (85)
- Introducing... the Delivering Greener Transport team
In our latest guest article, the Delivering Greener Transport team in the Department for Transport outline their priorities, recent steps that they've taken, and how the team approach the decarbonisation challenge. The intertwined crises of climate change and nature loss are the greatest long-term global challenges we face, and all of us in government have a role in mitigating and adapting to their impacts. Without doing so, we will not effectively deliver our missions to ‘make Britain a clean energy superpower’ (clean energy), to ‘build an NHS fit for the future’ (health), and to ‘kickstart economic growth’. Delivering Greener Transport 'Delivering Greener Transport' is a priority for the Department for Transport, and encompasses the following sub-priorities: Decarbonisation: ‘ Accelerating to net zero’ is a key pillar of the clean energy mission. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, HMG must achieve cross-economy net zero by 2050. The technologies needed to green our transport systems present strong opportunities for catalysing private investment across the UK, helping to kickstart economic growth. DfT is accountable across government for reducing carbon emissions from in-use transport (exhaust emissions). Decarbonising transport will improve the UK’s energy security by running on domestically produced clean energy. DfT also supports the delivery of cross-economy net zero by aiming to reduce the carbon emitted to construct, maintain and operate our transport infrastructure. Adapt the transport system to climate change: Our transport network must adapt to be resilient to more frequent and extreme weather events. A resilient transport system underpins strong business and consumer confidence, both of which are essential to kickstart economic growth. Reduce air pollution from transport: Reducing air pollution from transport is a key pillar of the health mission. Costs of air pollution to the economy could reach £5.3bn per year by 2035 without cross-government action. Reduce wider environmental impacts from transport and support nature recovery: DfT is implementing a range of environmental legal requirements, including the Environmental Principles Policy Statement duty, the Biodiversity Duty and Biodiversity Net Gain. The Department also participates in wider cross-government work to implement the Environmental Improvement Plan. Recent steps In the past few months, the Department has taken further steps to Deliver Greener Transport, by: Encouraging greener travel by improving the quality and availability of public transport to all by: Bringing franchises back into public ownership through the Rail Passenger Bill. Giving power to local authorities to run their own bus services and launching a consultation for new draft guidance to provide advice and support for local leaders looking to bring services into public control. Driving forward with the Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) Mandate and a revenue certainty mechanism to spur investment. Embedding Environmental Principles into policy, project design and investment appraisal. Setting clear requirements around carbon management and whole life carbon assessments for infrastructure investments. Resuming our global climate leadership role in negotiations at the 29th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties – UNFCCC COP29. Please leave the 'contribute to the CSCEN Blog' section below - this encourages members to get involved. Joined-up working The DGT Team synthesises progress across these outcomes and organise senior departmental boards focused on Delivering Greener Transport, rotating agendas as required. A key challenge for us has been to drive joined up working across our sub-priorities for teams across the Department. We have identified significant value-add from linking decarbonisation and air quality workstreams, as most policy interventions tend to reinforce these objectives. Where possible, we use the governments’ missions to communicate the importance of Delivering Greener Transport, as this gives everyone a common language and will aid Departmental staff in using the missions when engaging externally. This article has been drafted by the Delivering Greener Transport team in the Department for Transport. If you would like to get in touch, please contact the DGT Team at dgtsecretariat@dft.gov.uk . Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!
- Climate Misinformation and Disinformation: further reflections from our November Talk
We were amazed by the large turn out and engagement for our November CSCEN Talk on Climate Misinformation and Disinformation . We sent outstanding audience questions to our speakers after the talk who have kindly responded with some further thoughts and reflections. A full recording of the talk is available on the CSCEN Website . As a reminder, our speakers for this talk were David Shukman (independent speaker, writer and consultant and former BBC Science Editor) and Zaneta Sedilekova (Qualified lawyer and director of climate and nature risk expert consultancy firm Planet Law Lab). General reflections from David Shukman I found it very heartening to see such a big turnout of civil servants for this discussion. I think that’s quite new. Over the years I’ve engaged with officials of all levels who’ve tended to have a narrow focus on their roles, perhaps understandably. So physical climate impacts were something to do with Defra, anything low carbon was the job of the business department, urban planning was another ministry entirely. The reality is that all these problems – and the solutions – are intertwined and it’s hard to think of a government body that shouldn’t be involved in planning for extreme heat, for example. They all need to be at the table: Treasury, Defence, Transport plus the obvious one of Health. So a starting-point is to think beyond silos, and it’s great to see any sign of that. However none of this takes place in a vacuum. There’s a constant barrage of pro-oil propaganda whose scale and potency are always underestimated. The oil companies and petrostates are fighting to preserve their interests. This can mean promoting all kinds of ideas and content that can be distorting or false, and these easily ether the political bloodstream. Their tactics are often described as deny, delay and distract, in other words undermine the science, slow down any response and shout ‘look over here’ at some shiny but ineffectual project. I would add a fourth ‘D’ for ‘disarm’. Some of the industry’s leading figures turn up at climate COPs, give media interviews, big up their contributions to the transition, give an impression of willing engagement. A lot of it is snake-oil: schemes that depend on public funding that’s yet to be secured; promises of delivering Net Zero while actually expanding production; making bold claims for cutting emissions that aren’t justified when one reads the caveats tucked away in tiny font sizes. Critical to countering all of this is employing the clearest possible language. The marketing expert John Marshall says, rightly, that “no one gets out of bed saying ‘it’s a great day for decarbonisation’. There are ways of talking about climate change accurately but intelligibly, and it couldn’t be more important. I like to picture myself trying to explain some point to my mother or a friend who may be an artist or musician. It takes real effort and thinking but it’s worth it. The world of climate policy is in a spiral of ever more complex concepts and acronyms, many of which are the result of compromises that require words that obscure reality rather than illuminate it. So here’s a challenge: can you talk or write about some aspect of climate change without using words ending ‘-tion’? Not easy, but crack it and you’ll find it makes a difference to the level of engagement and understanding, and what could more useful than that? Zaneta Sedilekova’s reflections on outstanding audience questions Do we have the right to make climate mis/disinformation illegal? I would approach this through the lens of a balance between rights and power, not only a right as such. Legality and illegality of any act in the UK is within the power of the UK government to control. This power is not unfettered – it is restricted by human rights and freedoms of the UK citizens and residents (e.g. the freedom of expression). In making climate mis/disinformation illegal, the UK government therefore has to strike a balance between its power and people’s rights and freedoms. Precedents exist – hate speech, for example, is illegal under Public Order Act 1986 and Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. The focal point of making climate mis/disinformation illegal is likely to be the definition of both terms – it needs to be specific enough to capture the acts of mis/disinformation, while broad enough to accommodate ever evolving climate science. Are we moving towards a US-style media ecosystem (including threats to the future of the BBC) and what is the impact on climate dis/misinformation? As such how do we restore trust and integrity in mainstream news media as truth-seeking, especially when criticism is fair as pro-fossil communications are sometimes adopted? There are signs of it. Media’s function is first and foremost to keep society informed. Facts and news presented objectively are the pinnacle of informed society, followed by opinions and interpretations. The main threats to this purpose of media are: corporate capture of media, where media present themselves as objective while the content they publish is heavily influenced by their corporate sponsors; persona journalism, where enterprising and inquiring journalists are replaced by media personalities, who may seem competent and knowledgeable, but in fact have large teams working behind them; disappearance of local media, where international journalists report on events half the world away, relying on accounts of local people but not verifying these stories themselves; rise of anti-intellectualism, where art, literature and science are dismissed as impractical or politically motivated – people seek bite-size information, which narrows down complexity of a situation; AI, which works with words and languages, but lacks intellectual cognition and moral code to determine which words are true and which are not – we have already seen algorithm incite violence; and surveillance capitalism, where peoples’ behaviour, including exposure to news, is predetermined by private companies and government gathering data on their regular behaviour and influencing their future behaviour. All these factors interplay with climate dis/misinformation – it is science-based and complex, but needs to be communicated in a simple way to the public. Personas and corporations are not suitable to communicate climate information – this is where my point about the need for fully informed civil service in the UK comes in. It is the government that needs to uphold independent media in relation to climate science (and not only). Noam Chomsky makes some salient points about the history and the evolution of media in the US in his Masterclass (no promotion here, just an honest recommendation). Tobacco companies engaged in the same strategies (as Exxon mentioned previously and the “4Ds”). None of the directors faced any consequences. Do we need to change the way corporations are configured? Corporate governance indeed needs to change for responsible business to work. However, the changes may not be as radical as some may envisaged. We already have directors at board level representing particular business divisions – e.g. a Finance Director, an HR Director. There is a scope to innovate within existing frameworks – for instance, Faith in Nature appointed a Nature Director to its board in 2022 and is reportedly undergoing a huge mindset change across the entire business as a result (see the company’s Year 2 report ). I have recently finished a chapter called Corporate Governance for Nature that will be published in The Palgrave Handbook of Environmental Policy and Law in September 2025 , which discusses various approaches to bringing nature into corporate governance. All of them can be replicated for climate. I am happy to share that chapter with you once the editorial revision is completed (early 2025). As for directors’ liability, the law is changing rapidly in this area. In the UK, we have an authoritative opinion which states that under the law of England and Wales, directors should consider nature-related risks – in this context nature includes climate too. The opinion states that ‘Directors who fail to give consideration to relevant non-trivial nature-related risks, and take appropriate steps to mitigate them, may be exposed to claims that they have acted in breach of duty .’ The issues with such litigation is its procedural complexity – it is hard to successfully bring a claim against directors personally. This is the area of law, where litigation is not the answer, which is why I recommend looking at corporate governance. How will the successful appeal by Shell to overturn an obligation to reduce its emissions in Holland (brought by Friends of the Earth) impact similar cases? Is it a good thing (fossil fuels worried action is being taken) or a bad thing (trying to water down transition) when so many fossil fuel folks attend COP29? The Shell’s victory was multifaceted. First the appeal court actually confirmed that Shell has a ’special responsibility’ and ‘major obligations’ to reduce its emissions. The issues at stake was the extent of this obligation. The most relevant point that the appeal court made was to say that the 45% reduction target imposed on Shell by the court of first instance was not valid. In essence, there was not enough science, according to the court, to impose such specific target. This then impacted particular findings through the judgment: In relation to its Scope 1 and 2 emissions, Shell has adopted 50% reduction target, even more ambitious than the one originally imposed (45%) and thus there was no case to answer; In relation to Scope 3 emission, the court said there ‘may’ be an obligation to reduce these. May rather than must for two reasons: There is, as of now, no guidance specific to oil and gas industry about how this sector must reduce its emissions (that is by how much and by when). – now this is where government regulation comes in. When such guidance becomes available, this argument will no longer stand. There are, as of now, not enough substitutes (e.g. wind and solar) for oil and gas. This means that even if Shell reduced its Scope 3 emissions, another company would step n and supply the fossil fuels with net reduction being effectively zero. There is still demand for fossil fuels that Shell is merely supplying that demand. – this is where a) investments into renewable energy can make a real difference (on the supply side) and government incentive scheme (e.g. on the purchase of electric vehicles) on the demand side. Court also said that new oil and gas fields may be incompatible with the energy transition. This was a test case – first of its kind – and it gave climate litigants a clear blueprint for choosing defendants in future. We can therefore expect increase in: Litigation against sectors with specific reduction pathways is more likely now as and when these are adopted; Litigation against planning permissions of specific new fossil fuel projects is likely to increase too; In relation to Scope 3 emissions, under CSRD, many companies will have a duty to prepare a Paris-aligned transition which. This includes their Scope 3 emissions and is likely to require alignment with the EU’s emission reduction goal, which sits at 55% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. Litigation is not a silver-bullet solution – having heard all of the above, a responsible company would start transitioning now as the liability risk for not doing so sits very high after this case and upcoming regulatory developments. Do you believe that civil disobedience is an essential component in tackling climate change and does the harsh sentencing applied to climate activists risk discrediting the movement to tackle climate change? Civil disobedience is one lever of change, indeed. When you imagine climate action as a continuum, with one end being climate denial and the other climate boycott, many actions sit in between the two extremes, including civil disobedience. All these actions are a form of communication – if we feel out government cannot hear us when we use language, we start screaming and then using other means – our actions – to communicate. This could include non-violent protests, but also violent protest (which we have not seen yet). Sentencing on its own cannot discredit the movement – it is how such judgments are reported in media, which impacts public perception (we circle all the way back here). If sentencing is perceived as too hash for what the public sees as a legitimate movement, it can alienate judges from the public. Do you think there would be an issue in promoting more simplified language in climate discussions whilst still maintaining scientific accuracy/complexity? Not at all – if such language is agreed with scientists and then promoted more widely in media (also social media), it can lead to a powerful climate action. Scientists themselves are already doing this – in this video , for example – Johan Rockstrom, the scientist who developed the planetary boundary framework, uses a simple term ‘the corridor of life’ to describe variability in average temperatures in relation to the flourishing of modern human civilisation, and the presence of our species on this planet. He does so to show that we have no evidence whatsoever as to how ou r t species will come beyond 2 degrees Celsius – as we never had to in the history of our planet. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!
- The Climate Finance Deal at COP29: How it Unfolded and What it Means
Following the conclusion of COP29, CSCEN's Emilio Risoli looks at what the final NCQG deal means for international climate finance. Activists protest for climate finance at COP29. Credit: Reuters COP29 was billed as the “finance COP”, and “ the most important for climate finance since…COP15 in 2009 ”. This is because, at COP15, countries established a climate financing target of $100 billion annually for 15 years, and that pledge expires at the end of this year. The general consensus among negotiators in Baku was that a more ambitious goal was needed, to help poorer countries adopt low-carbon solutions and build resilience to worsening climate impacts. In his opening remarks to the ministerial-level World Leaders Climate Action Summit at COP29, UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutierres declared that “ COP29 must tear down the walls of climate finance ”. He outlined the obstacles facing poorer countries – scant public finance, high levels of debt, the increased cost of borrowing – and stressed that they “must not leave Baku empty-handed…or humanity will pay the price”. By the time a deal was finally agreed at 3am local time on Sunday, richer countries pledged to pay $300 billion (£238 billion) each year, by 2035, to help vulnerable nations tackle climate change. New Collective Quantified Goals on Climate Finance A relatively new acronym has taken centre stage at COP29: NCQG. This stands for New Collective Quantified Goal – which simply means the new annual target for climate finance, which countries have spent the conference trying to agree on. At this point, it’s probably worth clarifying what is meant by “climate finance”. According to the UNFCCC , “climate finance refers to local, national or transnational financing – drawn from public, private and alternative sources of financing – that seeks to support mitigation and adaptation actions that will address climate change”. That is, government or private money spent on clean energy, low-carbon technologies, or adaptation measures. It’s also worth noting at this point that this is different to the Loss and Damage Fund, which is effectively a form of compensation paid by richer countries to low-income ones, to help them pay for the damage caused by climate-related natural disasters. You might have noticed that the UNFCCC definition is not very precise when it comes to the type of financing being referred to: are we talking about grants or loans, for example? Is this about aid or investment? In fact, this has been a source of contention during negotiations and the subsequent agreement. Negotiations in Baku Negotiations in Baku over the NCQG were widely reported as tense. According to the New York Times : “just days into the talks, there were pointed comments from the leaders and squabbling in the negotiating rooms about the details, including exactly how much money should be raised, who should pay, where it should come from and how it should be spent.” On the question of “how much”, developing countries, environmental activists and climate economists seemed generally in agreement: over $1 trillion a year was required to ensure alignment with the Paris Agreement. Where those funds would come from was a further point of dispute, with the US and EU reportedly indicating that they want countries like China and Saudi Arabia to provide a growing share of the funds. There was further disagreement on how much of the money should come from the private sector and, as referenced above, how much should be provided as aid. In a letter to governments, a coalition of activists and scientific organisations argued that all the money should be provided in the form of grants, and warned that the provision of loans would only compound the debt woes of poorer countries . Agreeing the Deal It was this fraught context which prompted Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, in the aftermath of the agreed $300 billion deal, to declare: “This is a critical eleventh hour deal at the eleventh hour for the climate. It is not everything we or others wanted but is a step forward for us all”. However, not everyone agreed with this assessment. Jasper Inventor, head of Greenpeace’s delegation, called the proposal “inadequate”, and “ divorced from the reality of climate impacts ” . Mohammed Adow, from the environmental group Power Shift Africa, described the deal as “ a slap in the face ”. So, what does the final agreement actually say? The key paragraph reads as follows: The Conference of the Parties “decides to set a goal…with developed country Parties taking the lead, of at least USD 300 billion per year by 2035 for developing country Parties for climate action: (a) From a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources; (b) In the context of meaningful and ambitious mitigation and adaptation action, and transparency in implementation; (c) Recognizing the voluntary intention of Parties to count all climate-related outflows from and climate-related finance mobilized by multilateral development banks towards achievement of the goal set forth in this paragraph”. Find the full text here . Notice that it specifies that the money must come from developed countries (i.e. not the likes of China or Saudi Arabia), but also that it does not specify the source of the money. Public, private and “alternative” sources are all included. What Next Key challenges lie ahead, not least in ensuring that action follows ambition (even if the ambition is not quite as high as many hoped). Many point to the fact that in the 15 years since COP15, the $100 billion annual target was met in full only once, in 2022. Making sure that this target is met will require further global cooperation. Remember that debate, referenced earlier, around what kind of money constitutes climate finance? That is sure to continue, and it will probably focus on the role of taxation. President Macron of France joined Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Mottley and Kenyan President William Ruto in calling for a 0.1% levy on stock and bond trades, along with a a tax levied on oil and gas producers. Meanwhile, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has proposed a 2% billionaire tax that could raise $250 billion while affecting only 100 families across the world. A frequent flyer levy is another sure way to raise funds in wealthy countries, and a recent Oxfam study found that fair taxes on private jets and superyachts in the UK could have raised up to £2 billion last year alone . Furthermore, they find that 4 in 5 Brits support higher taxes on luxury travel . However, these types of interventions often face powerful opposition, and richer countries often see climate finance as more of an investment opportunity than a direct cash transfer. One mooted solution has been that of wiping the debt of poor countries in exchange for climate investment . A further unknown is the impending Trump presidency: it is expected that the US will withdraw from the Paris agreement , and this prospect would undoubtedly have loomed over the negotiations. Indeed, commentators have suggested that this is a reason the final number was less than developing countries were hoping for. According to Professor Joanna Depledge, an expert on international climate negotiations at Cambridge University, " the other developed country donors are acutely aware that Trump will not pay a penny and they will have to make up the shortfall ". As the crowds dispersed in Baku, Mike Childs, head of policy at Friends of the Earth, perhaps summed up what many were feeling. He credited the UK delegation for playing a productive role during the talks, but also acknowledged that COP29 "kicked the can down the road", and " failed to solve the question of climate finance ". What is for sure is that global efforts in raising climate finance will need to continue to be ramped up from here on in. With or without the US, the UK must continue to play a productive and cooperative role. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!
General Content (11)
- Training | CSCEN
Training Resources Do you want to learn more about the environment? Nature? Climate change? Sustainability? Net Zero? And many other topics in between? Are you looking for some self-directed, self-paced learning opportunities that fit around your schedule? There are many free training resources available for those wanting to increase knowledge and skillsets. We have compiled a list of some of the best resources available. If you are aware of any others, please let us know by emailing environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . Jump straight to these providers to explore yourself or continue reading to review our course recommendations. Policy Profession OpenLearn One UN Climate Change Learning Partnership UNSCC FutureLearn SDG Academy edX Supply Chain Sustainability School Apolitical Coursera En-ROADS Policy Profession The Policy Profession Unit’s Climate, Energy and Environment Policy Hub is an online resource that support government policy and non-policy professionals working within the climate, energy and environment policy domain. It contains a training catalogue, career profiles, and features dedicated resources on the Environmental Principles Duty and climate adaptation policy. It is part of the Climate and Environment Career Anchor project, a two-year programme improving support for climate, energy and environment expertise within the policy profession. It is a live project and as new resources are developed they will be released on the hub. To access the hub you will need to register to the Policy Profession website. OpenLearn by The Open University OpenLearn is a free learning platform, delivered by The Open University as part of its Royal Charter commitment to support the wellbeing of the community. There are over 1000 free courses, topical and interactive content, videos and online games on OpenLearn. Most content is available to anyone with a general interest, and each free course is set at a particular level to indicate the amount of previous educational experience expected to study the unit within the stated hours. All the free nature and environment courses are listed here. Top 6 suggested courses: Climate change Climate change and renewable energy Climate change: transitions to sustainability Working with our environment: an introduction Introducing environmental decision making Introducing the environment: ecology and ecosystems The One UN Climate Change Learning Partnership (UN CC:Learn) The One UN Climate Change Learning Partnership (UN CC:Learn) is a joint initiative of more than 30 multilateral organizations helping countries to achieve climate change action both through general climate literacy and applied skills development. The UN CC:Learn knowledge-sharing platform provides a ‘one-stop-shop’ for accessing climate change learning resources and services offered by the UN system. The UNCC:Learn platform is the single largest dedicated learning platform on climate change - with a specific focus on developing country needs. The UN CC:Learn Course Catalogue is free to access, once you register an account. Top 6 suggested courses: Net Zero 101: What, Why and How Climate Change: From Learning to Action Introduction to Sustainable Development in Practice Introduction to Sustainable Finance Introduction to Green Economy How to prevent e-waste? UNSSC | United Nations System Staff College Similar to UNCC:Learn, the UNSCC provides a range of courses designed to support the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Through its Knowledge Centre for Sustainable Development, which was opened in 2016, UNSSC helps accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda through learning, training, and knowledge management. It does so in collaboration with and in support of the UN system, civil society, academia, the private sector and other partners. Top 6 suggested courses: Digital4Sustainability Learning Path Circular Economy Approaches for Sustainability Sustainable Lifestyles Circular Economy and the 2030 Agenda The Paris Agreement on Climate Change as a Development Agenda Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development SDG Academy The SDG Academy offers high-quality resources and guidance on education for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with the mandate to enrich the field of sustainable development and advance Agenda 2030. The SDG Academy offers over 40 free, open educational resources from the world’s leading experts on sustainable development. Top 6 suggested courses: Climate Change Science and Negotiations Climate Change: The Science and Global Impact Water: Addressing The Global Crisis Feeding A Hungry Planet One Planet, One Ocean How to Achieve the SDGs or What will it take to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030? FutureLearn FutureLearn is an online education provider based in the UK that offers online courses, popularly known as MOOCs or Massive Open Online Courses, from top universities and institutions around the world. It is free to join and study the majority of courses on FutureLearn, but you can also buy course upgrades which gives you access additional features such as tests and certificates. Top 6 Suggested courses: Planet Earth: Understanding and Protecting our Environment Tackling Environmental Challenges for a Sustainable Future Environmental Impact Assessment Ecology and wildlife conservation Planet Partners: Tackling the Climate Crisis Together Unleash Your Potential: Sustainable Futures edX edX is a massive open online course (MOOC) provider created by Harvard and MIT. It hosts online university-level courses in a wide range of disciplines to a worldwide student body, including some courses at no charge. Most courses are free, and similar to FutureLearn you can pay extra to have graded assignments/exams and a certificate afterwards. Top 6 suggested courses: Climate Change: Carbon Capture and Storage Climate Change: Financial Risks and Opportunities Introduction to the Natural Capital Approach Energy Within Environmental Constraints Introduction to Water and Climate Climate Solutions Supply Chain Sustainability School Launched in 2012, the Supply Chain Sustainability School (SCSS) is a free virtual learning platform around sustainability, with the aim to upskill those working within, or aspiring to work within, the built environment sector. SCSS learning covers the three core pillars of Sustainability – Environmental, Social and Economic – looking at key issues ranging from carbon management through to combatting modern slavery. These courses are particularly relevant for those working in public sector procurement or adjacent roles. Top 6 suggested courses: Carbon Reduction, Offsetting and Net Zero Carbon Footprinting & Measurement The Circular Economy Supply Chain Mapping and Modern Slavery Introduction to Social Value Embedding Sustainable Procurement Apolitical Apolitical is a social learning network for government used by over 250,000 public servants globally. It provides access to communities for public servants to connect and exchange ideas and provides online courses designed with the needs of public servants. One of the main topics is ‘climate’. Under this theme, apolitical runs courses to get public servants familiar with climate innovations to help public servants make the best decisions about climate policy. Top 6 suggested e-learning courses: An introduction to Green Growth Communicating climate change Public Servants and Climate Change: Reaching Net Zero Collaborating with Indigenous Communities to Address Climate Change Climate change and mental health Centring Equity in Climate Action Coursera Coursera is an online course provider founded in 2012. It works with Coursera works with universities and other organizations to offer online courses, certifications, and degrees in a variety of subjects. Coursera courses last approximately four to twelve weeks, with one to two hours of video lectures a week. These courses provide quizzes, weekly exercises, peer-graded and reviewed assignments, an optional Honors assignment, and sometimes a final project or exam to complete the course. They have many courses on climate change, many of which are free. Suggested e-learning courses: Global warming 1: The Science and Modelling of Climate Change Climate change and human rights From climate science to action Global energy and Climate Policy Climate Change mitigation in developing countries Bending the curve: climate change solutions Global Climate Change policies and analysis En-ROADS En-ROADS provides a climate simulator tool with interactive training materials that has manifested into its own globally renowned and prestigious climate training offering. En-ROADS’ training model is crafted by self-led training materials for a single user, with opportunity to attain an ‘Ambassador’ status once becoming fully qualified, with users obtaining the ability to train others. En-ROADS is a global climate simulator that allows users to explore the impact that dozens of policies — such as electrifying transport, pricing carbon, and improving agricultural practices — have on hundreds of factors like energy prices, temperature, air quality, and sea level rise. The climate simulator tool- En-ROADS- helps people make connections between things they care about and the possibilities available to help ensure a resilient future. Users can quickly see the long-term effects of the global climate policies and actions they imagine.
- Template | CSCEN
Big title here Sell yourself here....... The environment? Nature? Climate change? Sustainability? Net Zero? And plenty more in between? You have come to the right place.... Add a box for quick links here.... Policy Profession OpenLearn One UN Climate Change Learning Partnership more intro text here...... Get some some self-paced free training that will fit around your schedule. We have a list of some of the best resources available but if you know of any others, let us know: environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . Jump straight to the free providers to explore yourself or keep reading to review our course recommendations. Main Body Text Here Blah.....We have a list of some of the best resources available but if you know of any others, let us know: environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . Jump straight to the free providers to explore yourself or keep reading to review our course recommendations. Emphasize a point with a quote or add a picture here. This is a paragraph. Use this area to add any information you want to share with users. Just click "Edit Text" or double click here to change the text and make it your own. You can also adjust the paragraph's font, size and color so it fits your website’s theme. This is a great place to tell users a story about your website and let them know more about what you offer. You may want to share information about your company's background, your team, or the services you provide. Be sure to keep the tone and voice consistent throughout the site so users become familiar with your brand.
- Civil Service Climate + Environment Network | CSCEN Online
We represent a group of civil servants from a wide variety of backgrounds. Our mission is to build climate and environment knowledge and policy capability across the Civil Service. Building knowledge and capability across the UK Civil Service We are 10,000 civil servants and public servants, working together to tackle the biggest climate and environment questions within and beyond government. Join this month's events Watch our videos Listen to our podcasts Watch our past events Read our articles Welcome Our network is open to all UK civil and public servants, and since being founded in 2019, our mission is to grow climate and environment policy capability across the whole UK Civil Service. We do this though monthly events, podcasts, YouTube videos, blog content, and recently we hosted the first ever Civil Service Climate + Environment Conference. We also work to affect positive change within the Civil Service, and are currently developing a climate and environment specialism to be embedded in the Policy Profession standards, as set out in the March 2023 Net Zero Growth Plan. Our senior sponsors are Lee McDonough, Director General for International Net Zero and Nuclear at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and Sally Randall, Director General for Environment at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Civil Service Climate + Environment Conference, February 2023: Minister Jesse Norman (DfT), Minister Trudy Harrison (Defra), Minister Stuart (DESNZ), and Tamara Finkelstein, Defra Permanent Secretary. Photos owned by CSCEN. Get involved Join us and subscribe Follow us on Twitter Follow us on LinkedIn Audience at the Civil Service Climate + Environment Conference 2023. Photos owned by CSCEN. February Talk: Sustainable Finance and Economics Mon, 24 Feb Microsoft Teams In this month's talk, we hear from distinguished speakers, including Kate Raworth, author of 'Doughnut Economics', and Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, author of 'The Dasgupta Review', on Nature as a "blind spot" in economics that we can no longer afford to ignore. Register February Offshoots: Radical Ecological Democracy: pathways out of global crises? Tue, 25 Feb Microsoft Teams Join us on Microsoft Teams for our exciting February Offshoots event on emerging examples of alternative pathways towards a more sustainable and equitable future with Ashish Kothari and others. Register February DG: Discussion with Finance Earth & DESNZ ICF Thu, 27 Feb Microsoft Teams Let's discuss Finance & Investments with nature-based projects within public organisations. Join our Discussion Group where we discuss green finance; international and domestic, with Sarah Darrah a Senior Associate at Finance Earth and Zoe Norgate from DESNZ, International Climate Finance. Register Inclusive Environmental Careers Panel Discussion Fri, 07 Mar Microsoft Teams Join us for a lunch time session looking at the diversity of careers in the environment sector. Many people think that you need specialist training, higher education or connections to make a successful career in the environment sector. The reality is different. Register Civil Service Climate + Environment Conference 2025 Tue, 18 Mar Leonardo Royal Hotel London Tower Bridge Our conference returns, celebrating the theme ‘Pioneering Green Innovation’. Hear from experts from across the Civil Service and beyond on a wide range of topics from climate and nature finance, technology and AI, land use and energy. Register Careers in Weather and Climate - Katrina Macneill, Climate Science Communicator and Strategic Stakeholder Relations Tue, 08 Apr Microsoft Teams Join our exciting virtual session where we will explore April's theme of Weather and Climate through Katrina Macneill' career at the Met Office. Register Discover our podcasts Listen on CSCEN Online Listen on Apple Podcasts Listen on Google Podcasts Alex Hughes 4 hours ago 3 min read Introducing... the Delivering Greener Transport team In our latest guest article, the Delivering Greener Transport team in the Department for Transport outline their priorities, recent... Emilio Risoli Nov 27, 2024 5 min read The Climate Finance Deal at COP29: How it Unfolded and What it Means Following the conclusion of COP29, CSCEN's Emilio Risoli looks at what the final NCQG deal means for international climate finance....