NBS logo
Subscribe
Donate

Answers to Common Climate Change Questions

People have valid questions about climate change causes, impacts, and solutions. Here are evidence-informed answers.

I meet many people with doubts about climate change and the extent to which human activity is harming people and nature. As a Professor at Ivey Business School, my research focuses on regenerative food systems, or food production practices that improve the health of people and the environment. I meet farmers who wonder how much they actually need to adapt their practices. I also teach MBA students who question the urgency of stopping climate change and regenerating damaged communities and ecosystems.

These questions are fair, and I wanted to get better at answering them – so, I spent 6 months talking to climate skeptics on LinkedIn. (I’ve described that interesting experience in another article.)

As I navigated my LinkedIn conversations, I was constantly looking at peer-reviewed research. Each time I heard a comment that didn’t match my understanding – things like “climate models aren’t reliable” or “tropical storms are getting fewer” – I explored research on the topic. Did these arguments have merit?

I found the arguments of skeptics were often based on a partial truth – scientific evidence that had been exaggerated or taken out of context. For example, it’s true that hurricanes and cyclones are becoming less frequent. However, warmer ocean water is also causing these storms to be stronger and grow more quickly.

Below, you’ll find the questions I encountered, with a short response based on peer-reviewed research. The questions are organized within four themes:

  1. Is the Earth warming and changing our climate?

  2. Is Earth’s warming caused by humans?

  3. Are the impacts of climate change bad?

  4. Are there workable solutions to regenerate nature and communities?

(In my responses, you’ll also see how the activities that cause global warming – like burning fossil fuels – also cause other direct and serious harm to people.)

Do we have definitive answers to all climate questions? Not really. Yet, there is solid evidence indicating that Earth is warming and degrading, humans contribute to such effects, the consequences are bad, and solutions are possible.

New science is published every day on these topics, meaning the information in this document is not fully up-to-date nor fully comprehensive. But the information is valid and relevant! If a response intrigues you, click the dropdown list to read more and access scientific citations.

(One quick definition to get us started: Greenhouse gases, or GhGs, is a term you’ll read a lot in this article. These are gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, that trap heat around the Earth. GhGs occur naturally but are being released at increasing rates due to human activity.)

Is the Earth warming and changing our climate?

QUESTION: How (and how much) do greenhouse gas emissions from human activities warm the Earth?

Longer Answer with Citations

When the sun’s light hits the Earth, it’s absorbed, then released as infrared radiation. Most of the infrared radiation then escapes back out to space. Greenhouse gases (GhGs) act like a blanket around the Earth, trapping some of that infrared radiation in. The question is, how much does that affect Earth’s temperature?

A well-cited study from the 1990s used data from ice cores to determine that doubling greenhouse gas concentration leads to 2.2-2.4°C of warming. Half of this warming (1.2°C) is a direct result of the insulating properties of GhGs, calculated according to the Stephan-Boltzmann equation. The other half comes from a ‘multiplier effect’, whereby GhGs cause secondary changes, which also increase temperature. A study published two decades later confirms this prediction.

More recent studies have revealed the mechanisms behind this multiplier effect. Those mechanisms include, for example:

  • Air warmed by GhGs, can hold more water vapour. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.

  • Warming air causes GhGs to be released from terrestrial systems. For example, as permafrost melts, the organic matter in the ground is able to decompose, releasing GhGs.

  • Warming wetlands release more methane, which is a very strong greenhouse gas.

  • The warmer atmosphere causes changes in changes in Earth’s cloud cover, which, amplify warming.

  • Warmer oceans cannot support as much plant life, which reduces their ability to act as a natural carbon sink.

Some skeptics have suggested that GhGs in the atmosphere would eventually reach a saturation point, or a concentration after which adding more GhGs would no longer contribute significantly to warming. Studies show that is not the case. As GhG concentration in the atmosphere continues to increase, the so will warming.

Additional resources

QUESTION: The weather where I live seems fine. Is the climate actually changing?

Longer Answer with Citations

Temperature measurements from both urban and rural areas tell us that on average, each year is 1.1°C (1.9°F) warmer than in 1880, though some areas are warming more quickly than others. Warming is already causing deadly heatwaves, harming agriculture, causing sea levels to rise, changing ocean ecosystems, and allowing viruses to spread. Just because you haven’t noticed, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

Certain locations are also more resilient to climate change than others, meaning they will experience fewer direct effects or have more resources to adapt. If you haven’t noticed the effects of climate change, you may live in an area that’s less affected. Southern Ontario (in Canada), for example, has many protective factors; it’s sheltered from sea level rise, has ample water access, and has a reliable electricity grid for cooling during hot spells. However, temperature increase and drought in areas where water is scarcer, temperature is already high, and electricity access isn’t universal, could be catastrophic.

Climate change is also non-linear. Small changes can go unnoticed and suddenly build up to big changes, or tipping points. For example, the Amazon rainforest stores a huge amount of carbon it its vegetation. The forest has been stable for 65 million years, but by 2050, 10% to 47% of the Amazon may be exposed to heat, drought, deforestation, and fires that could cause the forest ecosystem to break down. If we pass a tipping point, the Amazon could disappear permanently. Its breakdown would add huge amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, rapidly and irreversibly accelerating climate change.

Is the Earth’s warming caused by humans?

QUESTION: Isn’t the release of carbon dioxide a natural part the carbon cycle (a natural process by which carbon changes form)?

Longer Answer with Citations

It’s true that carbon cycling is natural. Carbon naturally changes forms, moving from gaseous forms (like carbon dioxide or CO2), to incorporation in plants, animals, and microorganisms, to minerals in the Earth, and back to gas again. In the case of burning fossil fuels, the problem is the timeline. The plants and animals whose bodies formed fossil fuel deposits were stored in the ground over a very long timeframe. Now, we’re releasing that carbon into the atmosphere over a short time scale and the Earth can’t keep up.

Some studies suggest that plants are growing more thanks to the extra CO2. However, the Earth system can only absorb 55% of the carbon we are emitting – the rest stays in the atmosphere and traps heat. Moreover, a recent study finds that when rising CO2 levels increase plant growth, there is a corresponding decrease in the amount of carbon that is stored in the soil.

Re-introducing carbon into the atmosphere today is returning Earth’s climate to the time of the Carboniferous Era, more than 300 million years ago, when the temperature was 20 degrees Fahrenheit (11 degrees Celsius) higher than they are now. At this time, the only animals were cold-blooded lizards and other reptiles. It was only as temperatures gradually cooled that reptiles were replaced by warm-blooded mammals, which had adapted to survive in a cooler climate.

QUESTION: Is climate change caused by a change in how Earth orbits the sun?

Longer Answer with Citations

The way the Earth rotates around the sun, including its tilt, wobble, and the shape of its orbital trajectory, changes over time. These changes, in turn, change the amount of solar energy the Earth receives. According to NASA, these variables change in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles), where each cycle is between 26,000 and 100,000 years long. The very long length of Milankovitch cycles means they cannot explain the significant changes in warming observed in the past 50 years. (According to NASA satellite observations, the amount of solar energy Earth receives has actually decreased slightly over the last 40 years.)

QUESTION: Is climate change is caused by changing levels of cosmic rays (microscopic particles from outer space) hitting the Earth?

Longer Answer with Citations

According to NASA, cosmic rays are microscopic particles (usually the nucleus of an atom) formed by exploding stars. They constantly enter Earth’s atmosphere, where they attract other molecules. Eventually, the growing clusters can attract condensed water and start to form forms clouds, which cool the Earth. Over the past 30 years, there’s been an increase in cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. If this mechanism were driving temperature change, the increased cloud formation should have caused cooling.

A recent study suggests the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation is small in comparison to the effect of other airborne particles, like those from volcanos. This means the overall temperature change created by cosmic rays is likely small compared to other natural changes.

QUESTION: Is the Earth warming because it’s receiving more solar energy?

Longer Answer with Citations

Studies have shown that periods of warming sometimes happen when Earth receives increased energy from the sun, or when the Earth orbits more closely to the sun. It’s even possible that an increase in solar energy received by Earth could have contributed to the warming in observed between 1900-1990, in combination with the warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

However, data from NASA shows the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth has been decreasing since about 1990. Over that same time, temperatures continued to rise. Another way we know that solar irradiance isn’t causing warming is the location of warming. Irradiance warms the whole atmosphere, but recent warming is only in the lower atmosphere (where greenhouse gases trap heat.)

Another recent study explored the correlation between solar activity and warming using a 2,000-year temperature reconstruction and seven different statistical models. The study confirmed that warming is strongly correlated with GhG concentrations.

QUESTION: Are we still warming out of the most recent ice age?

Longer Answer with Citations

Solar irradiance is the amount of energy that Earth receives from the sun. An increase in solar irradiance provided much of the warming needed to end the most recent ice age. Solar irradiance was even responsible for rising temperatures on Earth in the early 1900s. However, recent solar irradiance has not been increasing, and cannot explain the rapid warming in recent decades.

The rapid pace at which warming has been observed in the recent decades is also inconsistent with the slower, linear pace of natural warming that one would see following an ice age.

QUESTION: Is climate change caused by movement in the Earth’s inner core?

Longer Answer with Citations

According to NASA, rotation of the Earth’s inner core is correlated with small changes in surface temperature. Increased flow of the iron-rich core can increase temperature up to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.4 degrees Fahrenheit).

Scientists aren’t sure why this happens. But they do know that from 1860 to 1930, changes in core rotation closely correlated with changes in observed surface temperature. But in 1930, the Earth began to warm at a far greater rate than can be explained by core rotation. Currently, the warming effect caused by rotation in the Earth’s core is negligible compared to the warming effect of human greenhouse gases.

Moreover, a recent study provides observational evidence that the rotation of earth’s inner core stopped during the past 10 years. This should have been correlated with Earth’s cooling, however, global warming has continued at an accelerating pace.

QUESTION: Are climate models reliable?

Longer Answer with Citations

Scientists use models to understand which factors caused historic changes in temperature and climate and to predict what might happen in the future. These predictions involve some uncertainty, but that doesn’t mean they are unreliable.

In science, the word `uncertainty’ does not mean a mistake has been made. It’s simply a measure of variability in the data. Uncertainty in science means that all data have a range of expected values as opposed to a precise point value. For example, we can’t predict the exact average global temperature next year, but we can predict the average global temperature within a range – and we know the range is trending upward.

Climate scientists care deeply about uncertainties. In fact, entire literature streams have been developed to quantify them. Scientists don’t just acknowledge uncertainties, they also provide transparency and justification on which data and assumptions they use in their models, the limitations of those data and assumptions, the most likely outcomes they predict, how certain they are about their predictions, and potential alternative outcomes and explanations.

Models can’t tell us for certain what the weather will be on any given day, or which country will experience severe drought each year. However, even with the existing uncertainty, scientists know for certain that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the Earth and changing ocean behaviour and atmospheric weather. (Indeed, a recent study found that climate models published since the early 1970s were quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication.)

QUESTION: Is climate change a conspiracy by the rich and elite?

Longer Answer with Citations

The idea that climate change is a conspiracy of the elite was popularized by the “ClimateGate” scandal in 2009. Hackers released emails from climate scientists that were meant to show that scientists were “manipulating data and creating panic about climate change out of nothing.” They did this just ahead of the UN Climate Summit. After 5 separate investigations, no evidence of malpractice was found on behalf of the scientists. However, the publicity of the allegations succeeded in heavily shaking public confidence in climate science.

In reality, the peer-reviewed academic system, especially in the natural sciences, requires each paper to make their data available for scrutiny by other scientists, both during the review process (which generally involves up to 5 anonymous reviewers and several rounds of revisions) and after publication. During the peer-review process, reviewers assess the validity of the study methods and outcomes. Originality and relevance are also assessed, which means that if well-supported data suggested that climate change wasn’t happening, the academic community would welcome the findings.

Are the impacts of climate change bad?

QUESTION: Is the extra carbon dioxide in the air good for plants?

Longer Answer with Citations

Some studies suggest that plants throughout the world are growing more thanks to the extra availability of carbon dioxide (CO2), called carbon dioxide fertilization. So, yes, extra CO2 is good for plants. (Though it’s worth noting that plants can’t absorb all of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Estimates suggest that plants sequester only 55% of the GhG emissions we inject in the atmosphere. Another recent study finds that when rising CO2 levels increase plant growth, there is a corresponding decrease in the amount of carbon that is stored in the soil.)

But carbon dioxide fertilization is not the whole story. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere also causes heat waves and droughts, both which strain wild and domestic plants. For example, in 2020 Italy experienced its worst drought in 200 years, which wiped out 30% of its rice production. And in the Amazon, climate change-related heat, drought, and forest fires (as well as deforestation) could cause the breakdown of 10-50% of the forest ecosystem by 2050.

Plants and animals are also directly harmed by the same land use practices that contribute to global warming. For example, clearing forests to set up farms contributes to climate change by reducing trees that once sucked CO2 out of the air. Land use change and habitat loss is also the leading cause of biodiversity loss in terrestrial systems.

Additional resources:

  • Jaureguiberry, P., Titeux, N., Wiemers, M., Bowler, D.E., Coscieme, L., Golden, A.S., Guerra, C.A., Jacob, U., Takahashi, Y., Settele, J., Diaz, S., Molnar, Z., & Purvis, A. (2022). The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss. Environmental Studies. 8(45). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm9982

  • Vohra, K., Vodonos, A., Schwartz, J., Marais, E., Sulprizio, M., & Mickley, L. (2021). Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem, Environmental Research, 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110754

QUESTION: Won’t humans thrive in a warmer weather?

Longer Answer with Citations

The impact of global warming is varying dramatically. For example, a recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change shows that from 2010 – 2020, climate change-related deaths were 15 times higher in ‘highly vulnerable’ regions than they were in regions with very low vulnerability.

Geography is one factor that affects risk level. In Canada, warmer weather may make winters less harsh and extend the agricultural growing season, and more frequent heat waves and droughts will be buffered by ample availability of water.

However, 3.3 to 3.6 billion people are highly vulnerable to climate change. Large coastal cities are at risk from sea level rise and more intense storms. Regions that are already hot and water scarce could become unlivable if faced with additional heat and drought. (At the time of writing this, hundreds of millions of people in Asia are experiencing an extended heat wave. The record breaking heat has killed hundreds of thousands of fish, and is claiming 40 human lives per day in Myanmar alone.)

Risk also varies within the same region. The health of elderly people is more susceptible to extreme heat. People working in weather dependent industries, like agriculture, face more financial risk. Societies can adapt to some of the risks posed by climate change. But adaptation to heat won’t happen as fast as many believe.

Global warming is also only part of the picture for human well-being. Extracting and transporting fossil fuels can cause tremendous environmental damage through, for example, oil spills. Burning fossil fuels also has direct, negative impacts on human health in all areas of the world. For example, CO2 emissions are co-produced with other toxic pollutants, like ozone and fine particulate matter, which are harmful in their own rite.

QUESTION: Aren’t extreme storms becoming less frequent?

Longer Answer with Citations

A recent study confirms that the frequency of tropical cyclones has decreased relative to pre-industrial times for natural reasons. But the storms we do get are more likely to be intense (category 4 or 5). They also intensify more quickly. That’s because human GhG emissions are warming ocean surface water, in turn causing rapid intensification of category 4-5 cyclones in North and South Pacific, Arabian Sea, Texas, North Atlantic, and the Artic. Climate change is also increasing the frequency of heavy precipitations and rare, large-scale floods. 

Additional resources:

  • Garner, A. J. (2023). Observed increases in North Atlantic tropical cyclone peak intensification rates. Scientific Reports, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42669-y

  • Klotzbach, P. J., Wood, K. M., Schreck, C. J., Bowen, S. G., Patricola, C. M., & Bell, M. M. (2022). Trends in global Tropical Cyclone activity: 1990–2021. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(6). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl095774

  • Knutson, T., Camargo, S. J., Chan, J. C. L., Emanuel, K., Ho, C., Kossin, J., Mohapatra, M., Satoh, M., Sugi, M., Walsh, K., & Wu, L. (2019). Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part I: Detection and Attribution. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 100(10), 1987–2007. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-18-0189.1

  • Sharma, A., Wasko, C., & Lettenmaier, D. (2018) If Precipitation Extremes Are Increasing, Why Aren’t Floods? Water Resources Research. 54(11). 8545-8551. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023749

  • Zhang, X., Tang, H., Zhang, J., Walsh, J. E., Roesler, E. L., Hillman, B., Ballinger, T. J., & Weijer, W. (2023). Arctic cyclones have become more intense and longer-lived over the past seven decades. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01003-0

QUESTION: Is damage from storms and wildfires getting more expensive because of climate change, or because the value of assets is going up?

Longer Answer with Citations

The value of buildings and infrastructure in coastal communities is rising, as new infrastructure is built in previously undeveloped areas. That means even if environmental conditions were constant, the cost of damage from storms and wildfires would go up because there are more buildings to damage.

However, intense storms and wildfires are also happening more often and becoming more intense, which further increases the cost of damage.

Are there workable solutions to regenerate nature and communities?

QUESTION: Are renewable energy technologies even feasible?

Longer Answer with Citations

Wind and solar energy are already developed enough to provide profitable energy. Thirty percent of the world’s energy is now renewable, and many countries already rely primarily on renewable energy production. Fossil fuels, however, will continue to be more profitable until  governments (1) stop offering fossil fuel subsidies (which currently total $7 trillion per year globally), and (2) implement a carbon tax to ensure fuel cost prices reflect the true cost of environmental, health, and infrastructure damage.

Skeptics of wind and solar often criticize their low capacity factor, which means the ratio between the energy produced over a given time, and the maximum amount of energy that could be produced if the energy source would run 24/7. Capacity factor is useful when determining how much renewable energy infrastructure needs to be installed, as the units won’t function at maximum capacity all the time.

But capacity factor is not a good indicator of economic performance – total cost per unit of energy produced is better. Data suggests that the cost per unit of energy produced by wind is up to 50% cheaper than energy from coal energy production. By 2030, the cost per unit of solar and wind across all G20 countries is expected to be less than the cost of energy produced by fossil fuels.

Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) is another important metric. Building and installing new solar, wind, and storage infrastructure requires energy. At one point, the amount of energy produced by wind and solar was not much more than the amount of energy invested in the process. That has changed. In the majority of cases, EROI is greater than 10, though the exact number depends on the amount and types of storage required. 

Wind and solar do have natural limitations. For example, wind turbines require wind and solar panels produce minimal power at night. But these limits don’t stand in the way of viability. At the very least, solar panels can replace fossil fuel energy during peak daylight hours, and wind energy can become a primary contributor to baseload energy production, with fossil fuel energy filling in gaps. (And renewable energy innovations are advancing all the time, such as the sand battery that the Finnish town of Pornainen is using to eliminate its need for fossil fuel!)

Other resource:

IRENA (2024). Renewable capacity statistics 2024. International Renewable Energy Agency. https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Mar/Renewable-capacity-statistics-2024

QUESTION: Don’t fossil fuels give everyone access to affordable energy?

Longer Answer with Citations

Fossil fuels are economically competitive only because of substantial government subsidies. According to the International Monetary Fund, governments globally spend $7 trillion per year to subsidize the cost of fossil fuel production and consumption. That’s 7.1% of the total global GDP.

In the absence of a carbon tax, fossil fuel companies also do not have to pay the financial cost of the damage they cause. Costs include things like increasing respiratory disease requiring medical care, or infrastructure damage from climate change. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), each tonne of CO2 causes enough global warming to do least USD 33 in damage. Currently, humans release 35 billion tonnes of CO2 annually, causing at least $1.15 trillion in damage from climate change. This number doesn’t include the unpaid cost of cleaning up the environmental damage caused by fossil fuel extraction. In Canada alone, the financial cost of cleaning up extraction sites is estimated at between $58 and $260 billion.

As a society, we also need to grapple with truth the standard of living in affluent countries is not physically sustainable. The planet cannot continue to provide resources and absorb waste to match the current rate of consumption, especially when our production is linear, with minimal regeneration.  Many countries don’t need cheaper energy – they need lower consumption. (It’s also not obvious that cheaper energy or more wealth are required for happiness.)

The high standard of living is also not common across the population. The rich consume the most and emit the most GhGs, while other groups – like the poor, the elderly, or those living in coastal or wildfire communities – pay highest cost of climate change.

Let’s allow our global economy to price the negative effects of diverse forms of energy production (GhG emissions, toxic pollutants, oil spills etc.), and then let’s producers and consumers decide which technology is best. It is unlikely that fossil fuels will be more competitive than renewables.

Additional resources:

QUESTION: Are renewable energy technologies actually better for the environment?

Longer Answer with Citations

Wind and solar energy aren’t perfect environmental solutions. They have limitations that need to be managed. For example, solar panel manufacturing requires the use of many toxic chemicals, off shore wind farms can change the way that water mixes in the ocean, and terrestrial wind turbines kill an average of 40 million insects per year. However these impacts can be managed, and the environmental costs of renewable energy technology are still considerably lower than the environmental costs of fossil fuel use.

Additional resources:

QUESTION: Is renewable energy socially just?

Longer Answer with Citations

Renewable energy technology, like most technologies, isn’t inherently just or unjust. (The exception is intergenerational justice – renewable energy is more equitable to future generations, who will have to deal with fewer negative impacts from today’s consumption choices.) Rather, leaders should ensure social justice is baked into all new energy projects. Communities should be involved in determining how new energy resources are rolled out, and the process should prioritize small scale, decentralized power systems, located in areas without ecological or cultural significance. In particular, given the inevitability that climate change will cause future water scarcity, renewable energy installations that would reduce drinking water availability should be avoided.

It’s also important to note that the status quo is already highly unfair. All stages of the fossil fuel use, including extraction, processing, transport, and combustion, create toxic pollutants that affect nearby communities more than distant communities. Similarly, the impacts of climate change will be highly unjust. In most cases, the poorest countries, who did the least to cause climate change, will suffer the worst impacts. Even if renewable energy does present environmental justice challenges, it doesn’t mean that doing nothing is better.

QUESTION: I don’t trust government. Isn’t it better for markets to determine what people consume?

Longer Answer with Citations

There is a strong belief that humans should be free to consume all they want, whenever they want, and that markets, not governments, should choose which technologies and products will succeed. Markets, however, are designed to maximize profit for producers and maximize efficient access to paid goods for consumers.

Markets are not, however, designed to consider their nestedness in social systems and ecological systems. Markets have no mechanism for protecting people, or preventing the overuse of the resources on which they depend. For example, markets offer little to no incentive to collect wasted materials and energy and do something valuable with them, given that it is often simpler and less expensive to use virgin materials. Government intervention, such as emission caps or subsidies to promote low-carbon technology, is required to protect social and ecological systems.

Even for those who remain highlight skeptical of government intervention, carbon pricing (or carbon taxation) is can still be a supportable policy. Carbon pricing is a market-based tool. No single technology is supported. Rather, the government adds a financial cost on goods, which is proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases the good produces. This still supports consumer choice, but ensures market decisions factor in the actual costs fossil fuels.

A carbon tax can also be coupled with redistribution mechanisms, such that the tax is revenue neutral for the government. If redistribution is based on income, low-income households would receive more money back than they spent on the tax to begin with, meaning the program could also advance social justice.

Additional resource: 

  • Bansal, T., Durand, R., Kreutzer, M., Kunisch, S., & McGahan, A. (2024). Strategy Can No Longer Ignore Planetary Boundaries: A Call for Tackling Strategy’s Ecological Fallacy. Journal of Management Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13088

Share this post:

submit an article →

Comments

Share on activity feed

Powered by WP LinkPress

Add a Comment

This site uses User Verification plugin to reduce spam. See how your comment data is processed.

This site uses User Verification plugin to reduce spam. See how your comment data is processed.

Join the Conversation

Author

  • Jury Gualandris
    Director
    Network for Business Sustainability
    PhD in Economics and Management of Technology, Università degli studi di Bergamo

    Jury Gualandris is an Associate Professor of Operations Management and Sustainability at Ivey Business School and the Director of the Network for Business Sustainability (NBS). Jury’s academic work focuses on sustainability and competitiveness in supply chains. Under Jury, NBS will also focus more on building communities, so that people have a peer network to support them in creating change.

    View all posts
Related Articles
Subscribe

Partner with NBS to grow our impact

Skip to content