climate change

Copernicus Climate Change Service: The European State of the Climate 2025

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 7 minutes

From heatwaves to near-record ocean temperatures, Europe remains the fastest-warming continent


According to the latest European State of the Climate report (ESOTC 2025), published by Copernicus Climate Change Service and the World Meteorological Organisation, Europe remains the world’s fastest-warming continent.

The report, released on 29 April 2026, documents a year marked by record heatwaves, near-record ocean temperatures, destructive wildfires, shrinking glaciers, and mounting pressure on biodiversity. More than 95% of Europe experienced above-average temperatures in 2025.

Globally, 2025 ranked as the third-warmest year ever recorded, with planetary warming now reaching approximately 1.4°C above pre-industrial levels. If emissions continue at their current pace, the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C threshold could be exceeded before the end of this decade.

Across Europe, the signs of climate change are no longer isolated events but interconnected realities reshaping ecosystems, economies, and daily life.

Copernicus Climate: Europe in 2025

Temperature: Almost the entire continent saw above‑average temperatures. Several northern European countries logged their warmest or second‑warmest year.

Heatwaves: Europe endured its second most-severe heatwave on record; sub‑Arctic Fennoscandia saw its longest.

Wildfires: Record burnt area and fire emissions, led by August fires on the Iberian Peninsula.

Oceans: Highest annual sea surface temperature on record, with 86% of the region experiencing at least “strong” marine heatwave conditions.

Glaciers & snow: Net mass loss across all European glacier regions. Snow cover extent and mass both third lowest on record.

Floods/storms: Strong regional contrasts. Storms and flooding hit some areas, but overall less widespread than in recent years.

Energy: Renewables supplied 46.4% of Europe’s electricity. Solar power set a new contribution record (12.5%).

Copernicus Climate Change Service: line graph showing rising global atmospheric CO₂ and methane concentrations from 2020 to 2025.

Temperature across Europe’s land and seas


According to the Copernicus Climate report, Europe is warming more than twice as fast as the global average — and 2025 brought that into sharp focus. On land, almost the entire continent (at least 95%) saw above-average annual temperatures, with Europe suffering its second most severe heatwave on record. At sea, the picture was equally alarming: the annual sea surface temperature for the European ocean region reached an all-time high, and a record 86% of the region experienced at least “strong” marine heatwave conditions.

Hydrological conditions in 2025


In 2025, much of northwestern to eastern Europe was drier than average, with annual precipitation totals 10–40% below normal. This led to record-low soil moisture in some areas and below-average river flow in 70% of Europe’s rivers. In contrast, southwestern and parts of northeastern Europe saw above-average precipitation, soil moisture, and river flow. These patterns also influenced sunshine, cloud cover, and climate-driven renewable power potential.

The contrasts aligned with prevailing atmospheric circulation. High pressure brought drier, sunnier conditions to northwestern, central, and eastern Europe, while low pressure over the North Atlantic shifted storm tracks further south toward southwestern Europe.

Across the Iberian Peninsula, spring brought above-average rainfall, followed by summer heatwaves. This shift created abundant dried vegetation that fueled large wildfires.

Key messages

  • Soil moisture: 2025 ranked as one of the three driest years for soil moisture across Europe since 1992. In May, 35% of Europe experienced “extreme” agricultural drought.
  • Precipitation (northwest/central Europe): 2025 ranked among the ten driest years in 47 years for this region — a sharp contrast to the exceptionally wet conditions of 2023 and 2024.
  • River flooding: Despite several significant flood events, total flooded extent was the second lowest since 1992 and far smaller than the widespread flooding seen in 2023 and 2024.
  • Extreme precipitation: The share of Europe’s land area affected by extreme precipitation was below average, notably smaller than in several recent years — especially for the most extreme events.
  • Wildfire emissions: Annual wildfire emissions reached record highs in Spain (where contrasting hydrological conditions fueled large fires), as well as in Cyprus, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany.

Long heatwave in sub-Arctic Fennoscandia


In July 2025, sub-Arctic Fennoscandia experienced its longest and most severe heatwave on record, lasting 21 days from 12 July to 1 August. Temperatures near and within the Arctic Circle reached 30°C.

The region typically sees up to two “strong” heat stress days per year, but in 2025 some areas endured almost two weeks at this level. The combination of dry conditions and high temperatures produced “moderate” to “severe” drought during the heatwave, along with up to two weeks of elevated fire danger.

The heatwave coincided with a marine heatwave in the Norwegian Sea, as well as parts of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

Cold environments in a warming climate


From the Alps to the Arctic, Europe’s ice and snow cover is shrinking. The area experiencing winter days with freezing temperatures is also declining.

Snow cover: In 2025, end-of-season snow cover extent and mass were the third lowest in the 42-year record. In March alone, the snow-covered area was roughly 1.32 million km² below average — an area equivalent to France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria combined.

Glaciers: European glaciers recorded a net mass loss in 2025, with the most negative balances observed in Iceland.

Greenland: The Greenland Ice Sheet lost approximately 139 gigatonnes (Gt) of ice in 2025, equivalent to about 1.5 times the total ice stored in all European Alpine glaciers.

Climate policy and action: biodiversity


Biodiversity — the variety of life on Earth — is essential for a sustainable future, yet climate change is a major driver of its decline.

Healthy ecosystems provide clean air and water, fertile soils, and pollination, all of which underpin food security, livelihoods, and human health. Biodiversity also helps regulate the climate and buffers against extreme weather events.

Recognising this link, European policy frameworks have increasingly integrated climate and biodiversity. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 aims to protect and restore nature. By the end of 2025, approximately half of the Strategy’s recommended actions were either in place or fully completed, with most of the remainder already underway.

Climate’s impact on biodiversity


Marine heatwaves have shifted from occasional to annual events, driving mass mortality, species shifts, and ecosystem disruption. From 2023 to 2025, the entire Mediterranean Sea experienced at least “strong” marine heatwave conditions each year.

Posidonia oceanica seagrass — covering ~19,000 km² of Europe’s coasts — is highly sensitive to heat. Thermal stress has driven a 34% decline in its meadows over 50 years. Yet conservation efforts over the past decade have stabilised some areas, boosting species richness, restoring fish nurseries, and enhancing carbon storage and coastal protection.

Peatland wildfires: Europe has lost more peatland proportionally than any other region. Remaining sites like Deurnsche Peel and Mariapeel (Netherlands) are vital. Dried-out peat ignites easily — in April 2020, a 710-hectare fire burned for four days and smouldered for two months. Such fires kill amphibians, ground-nesting birds, and Sphagnum mosses, degrading habitats. Solutions include green firebreaks, ecological corridors, buffer zones, and native reforestation.

Copernicus Climate: trends in climate indicators


The latest Copernicus Climate data shows a clear pattern: the planet is warming, oceans are absorbing more heat, ice is disappearing, and sea levels are rising. Europe and the Mediterranean are warming significantly faster than the global average.

Rising temperatures (since pre-industrial, 1850–1900)

  • Global: +1.4°C
  • Europe: +2.4°C
  • WMO Region VI (Europe): +2.6°C
  • Arctic: +3.2°C

Oceans under pressure

Sea surface temperatures since the 1980s:

  • Global oceans: +0.6°C
  • Europe: +1.1°C
  • Mediterranean Sea: +1.4°C

Ocean heat content (upper 2000 m) has risen steadily since 1993.

Sea level rise (1999–2025)

  • Global: +3.7 mm per year
  • Europe: +2–4 mm per year

Greenhouse gases (annual increase since 2020)

  • CO₂: +2.6 ppm
  • CH₄: +11.6 ppb

Ice loss accelerating

  • Arctic sea ice (September): -33% since the 1980s
  • Antarctic sea ice (February): -20%

Ice loss since the 1970s:

  • Greenland: -5,747 Gt
  • Antarctica: -4,876 Gt
  • Global glaciers: -9,580 Gt

These indicators confirm that climate change is not a distant threat — it is an ongoing transformation already reshaping ecosystems, coastlines, and weather patterns worldwide.

Final thoughts


Reading the Copernicus 2025 Climate report (download it here), one might be tempted to highlight the positives. Renewables at 46%. Solar at a record 12.5%. Half of biodiversity actions completed.

Do not be fooled.

As climate scientist Kevin Anderson has long argued, every metric points the wrong way. Global temperature: up. Ocean heat: up. Sea levels: up. Ice loss: accelerating. Europe’s warming rate: twice the global average. The 1.5°C Paris threshold: set to be breached by the end of this decade — a decade earlier than predicted.

This is not progress. This is managed decline dressed up as hope.

Leaders knew the science. They had the tools. They chose delay. Most importantly, they chose fossil fuels. In doing so, they chose their own political timelines over the planet’s physical timelines. That is not a failure of capability. It is a failure of will — and of conscience.

The report does not show that we are on the right track. It shows that we are running off track, and those at the controls have intentionally refused to brake.

Copernicus Climate Change Service: The European State of the Climate 2025 Read More »

Overshoot Day in Italy: one year’s ecological budget already depleted

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Ecological debt: how we live beyond our means — using in just 123 days the resources meant to last a year


Overshoot Day in Italy fell on May 3 this year. Three days earlier than in 2025, when it occurred on May 6. From that day onward, Italy has been symbolically living on credit from the planet, having exhausted the water, energy, and natural resources that the Earth can regenerate in a full year.

An ecological debt that places Italy broadly in line with other European countries, though still lagging behind those with later Overshoot Days.

France reached its Overshoot Day earlier, on April 24. Germany (May 10), the United Kingdom (May 22), and Spain (June 4) follow — reflecting a comparatively greater ability to balance consumption with regeneration. Luxembourg, however, reached its Overshoot Day as early as February, while Qatar’s falls on February 4.

Globally, in the early 1970s, Overshoot Day fell in late December (December 25 in 1971). By 1990, it had already moved to mid-October.

Calendar-style graphic showing "Country Overshoot Days 2026" — the date by which humanity would use up a full year's worth of Earth's biological resources if everyone lived like a given country. For example, Overshoot Day in Italy fell on May 3, 2026. Countries with earlier dates (such as Qatar on February 4) have higher resource demand per person. Source: Global Footprint Network, 2026.

Entering the phase of overexploitation


The data is compiled by the Global Footprint Network, an international research organisation that measures countries’ ecological footprints by comparing their natural resource consumption with the planet’s capacity to regenerate them.

For Italy, this means that in just over four months, the country has consumed what the Earth can regenerate in an entire year. From that point forward, demand exceeds supply — and the deficit accumulates.

This imbalance is not abstract. It materialises as environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, waste accumulation, greenhouse gas build-up, and land consumption.

The impact of our lifestyles


The numbers speak clearly: if every person on Earth adopted our consumption patterns, we would need about 2.7 planets to stay in balance. 

This imbalance is not accidental — it is structural. It reflects production and consumption systems built on continuous growth, where demand routinely exceeds actual needs and efficiency gains are often offset by increased use.

This concern is echoed at the highest institutional levels:

“Much of the ‘natural’ capital upon which so much of human wellbeing and economic activity depends — water, land, the air and atmosphere, biodiversity and marine resources — continues its seemingly inexorable decline. The cost of inaction and the price humanity will eventually pay is likely to dwarf the cost of swift and decisive action now.”
— Achim Steiner, former UNEP Executive Director 

Move the date later in the year


The goal is simple: move the date later in the year.

But doing so requires more than a checklist of good intentions — it demands a shift in how systems are designed and how value is defined.

It means transitioning from linear to circular models, where waste is reduced at the source rather than managed downstream.
It means rethinking energy, food, and mobility systems so that efficiency is not just technological, but cultural.
And it means designing cities that reduce the need for consumption, not just optimise it.

And it also means confronting everyday habits — from what we buy to how we eat — recognising that individual choices, while limited on their own, become powerful when aligned with systemic change.

Even small shifts, when scaled, can move the date forward by days. Structural transformation can move it by months.

Final thoughts


Italy’s Overshoot Day is not meant to be observed — it is meant to be reversed.

Yet none of this is possible without acknowledging a harder truth: moving the date means moving our habits.

Italy exhausted its annual budget in 123 days — not by accident, but by design.

The same systems that built prosperity now threaten to undermine it.

But systems are not fixed. They can be redesigned.

The choice is ours: continue consuming as if tomorrow will never come, or recognise that every day moved later is a day earned back for future generations.

Overshoot Day in Italy arrived three days earlier this year.
Next year, it could arrive later.

In essence, we need to ask: what kind of world do we want?

Overshoot Day in Italy: one year’s ecological budget already depleted Read More »

Earth Day 2026: what are we celebrating?

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Between greenwashing and collapse: listening to what the signals really say


Happy Earth Day 2026? That’s the question we need to ask ourselves.

The UN Environment Programme titled its 22 April newsletter: “Happy Earth Day! Listening to the planet’s signals.” Are we still at this point? Still marking Earth Day this way? Celebrating? 

The very next lines of the same newsletter list the signals: rising temperatures, biodiversity loss, pollution, extreme heat. It’s hard to find happiness — or cause for celebration — in that list.

So, happy for what? What are we actually celebrating? The fact that the planet is still here? Or our own inaction?

The net zero scam


Kevin Anderson, a climate scientist, offers a blunt answer: our leaders have chosen to fail on climate change for thirty years. Every single metric is pointing in the wrong direction. Even countries like China, which are doing relatively well in terms of reductions, are still far from where they should be. 

“If the problem gets harder every single year,” Anderson says, “I don’t call that progress. Progress is only when you deliver what you have to.” In his view, the widely touted goal of net zero by 2050 is a scam — because until we eliminate fossil fuels and significantly cut agricultural emissions, temperatures will just keep rising. And the climate will just keep changing.

50% chance of AMOC collapse


Meanwhile, in The Guardian, George Monbiot warns that a catastrophic event is already upon us — yet we’re barely hearing about it. He points to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the ocean current that delivers heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic. The first study suggesting AMOC could have an “on” and “off” state was published in 1961. For decades, a human-induced collapse was considered a “low-probability, high-impact” event — devastating, but unlikely. That has changed. Recent research now describes it as a “high-probability, high-impact” threat. Last week, Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, a leading expert on the subject, put the chances of a shutdown at over 50%, with the tipping point potentially arriving “in the middle of this century.”

If AMOC collapses, northern Europe could see a massive drop in winter temperatures, and the Amazon’s water cycles could be so disrupted that the rainforest itself might tip into cascading collapse.

Final thoughts


From a 50% chance of AMOC collapse to net zero called a scam — the gap between celebration and reality has never been wider.

Yet there we were, on Earth Day 2026, reading cheerful newsletter subject lines while scientists warned that we’re drifting toward a climate tipping point with better-than-even odds.

This is not progress. Not leadership. And certainly not the future.

Maybe it’s time to stop celebrating — and start listening to the signals the planet is actually sending.
Because there’s nothing to celebrate. 

Earth Day 2026: what are we celebrating? Read More »

Micro and nanoplastics: research status and scenarios

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 8 minutes

Scientific and informative day promoted by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee with the municipality of Milan


This is the second annual outreach conference on micro- and nanoplastics, organised by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee in collaboration with the Municipality of Milan.

Last year’s conference opened the conversation — covered in a three-part series: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Why this event? Because scientific knowledge is often poorly communicated. Misinformation is widespread.

This topic spans multiple domains:
• effects on human health
• the biological world
• the industrial world
• disposal and reuse of plastic
• the fashion world

The goal is simple but essential: to share accurate information with the public and with institutions.
You can watch the event here.

Image from the Municipality of Milan and Acquairum for the scientific and informative day "Micro and nanoplastics: research status and scenarios," promoted by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee with the Municipality of Milan.

The weight of things: a brief history of anthropogenic mass


Telmo Pievani – professor of philosophy of biological sciences, University of Padua.

He opens the panel.

What is plastic? 
He starts with a quote: 

“The material that nature forgot to invent.”

On one hand, it’s a sign of human inventiveness — the creation of a democratic material. On the other hand, it also has a dark side: if nature didn’t invent it, it means there are no bacteria capable of destroying it.

How long have we been inventing materials that nature forgot to invent?
We have become physiologically dependent on technology. Just think of something as basic as cooking.
We changed the world through technology, and we have become dependent on it.
Now, we must learn to interact with nature in a virtuous way.

The problem is time. Let’s consider the human impact on the environment: from the 1950s onwards, there has been a great acceleration. In the last three generations, the human impact on the planet has gone out of control.

The weight of human artefacts used in our lives has exceeded the combined weight of all the plants, organisms, and microorganisms on Earth. 
(Ron Milo, study published in Nature, December 2020).

If we continue like this, by 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the sea.

We must learn to make peace with nature.
Nature-based solutions — as explored by Frances Arnold. She has found enzymes capable of reducing pollutants.

So, back to where we started: this, too, was not invented by nature, but it is a solution. Harnold exploited evolution to produce an enzyme that nature hadn’t invented. Researchers are now looking for bacteria capable of degrading plastic.

The attractiveness of plastic and its environmental implications, with particular reference to water


Nicoletta Ancona – Curator of the Aquarium and Civic Hydrological Station of Milan.

Plastics — what are they? 
Polymers — very long chains. Many different substances that we group together under a single name.

They have responded to human needs in every circumstance, as they are very cheap materials. The main problem issingle-use plastic — it degrades very slowly. Therefore, its use must be severely limited.

Plastic production is rapidly increasing. But where does all this plastic end up?
Only a tiny portion is recovered. The rest is dispersed everywhere, through the water cycle. Concentrations of plastic are found everywhere. 
Microplastics are the most damaging. Micro- and nanoplastics are much less visible but make up a significant portion of our diet. It starts with filter feeders — oysters, shellfish, whales — so they enter the food chain.
There are also substances that bind to plastic and amplify its harmful effects.

So, there is an ethical and health issue. It is important to inform, raise awareness, and educate. Let’s start from the bottom — from our daily lives —  to limiting plastics.

A striking note:
It’s sad to hear that in a facility like the Aquarium, they still use plastic cups for coffee. Due to existing agreements, bla bla bla… When we say the system is designed to fail, are we really wrong?

The hidden threats of plastics on human health


Prof. Claudio Fenizia – Professor of Immunology, University of Milan

Threats of plastic to human health. Highlighting the critical issues.

How plastics enter the body:
Plastics enter through inhalation, food, food and beverage containers, food storage containers, and transdermal application.
Plastics have been found in blood, testes, placenta, and amniotic fluid.
What is the effect?
• In atherosclerotic plaques, a higher concentration of plastic corresponds to greater inflammation.
• Plastic has been found in tumour tissue.
• A higher amount of plastic in the brain corresponds to a higher proportion of individuals with disorders such as senile dementia.

But – and this is key –
Until the causal mechanism is identified, the effect cannot be demonstrated.
Or rather: it must be defined whether plastic is the cause or the effect of inflammation or disease.

Environment, water and health


Prof. Caterina La Porta – Professor of Pathology, University of Milan

The environment we live in determines our health. A single vision of health emerges — One health.

Water is one of the most important vectors of exposure. We drink. We bathe. We wash our clothes. Everything in the environment reaches us.

Heavy metals, pesticides, and organic compounds accumulate in the environment.
This isn’t just an environmental problem — it’s becoming a health issue.

Regarding the impact of micro- and nanoplastics, we need to determine whether there is correlation or causality. Whether there is a single effect or bioaccumulation.

The microbiota — the complex network of bacteria, fungi, and viruses present in our intestines — is key.
Studies are being conducted to understand what happens with microplastics, which function as a concentration of toxic substances.

Climate change multiplies the risk. For example, drought increases concentration.

Education means making it clear that there is a problem. And making the right choice together.

What kind of future do we want?

Are PFAS and plastics really eternal pollutants?


Prof. Edoardo Puglisi – Professor of Agricultural Microbiology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Cremona

The question — which may seem philosophical, but it’s a scientific one — concerns whether we can solve the problems posed by these invaders.

First, a distinction: pollutant vs. contaminant.
When we talk about pollution, we use the words pollutant and contaminant in the same way, as synonyms. Technically, they are two different things.

• Contaminant: a natural or man-made substance that reaches a certain threshold.
• Pollutant: when that substance reaches levels high enough to cause adverse effects.

Another related issue is natural vs. synthetic substances.
There’s a tendency to think that natural substances are less toxic, but this isn’t always true.
We must have a scientific approach that allows us to understand how and to what extent substances can be dangerous.

Some natural substances are much more toxic than chemical ones.
In science, it’s best not to have multiple words that mean the same thing.

Another key distinction: danger vs. risk

• Danger: a substance that is toxic and can be dangerous to humans and the environment.
• Risk: depends on exposure. Risk combines danger and exposure. How much we are exposed to these substances. Risk assessment involves addressing these two elements.

A tiger can be dangerous, but the risk depends on the exposure.
The same goes for pollutants. 

As a microbiologist, the answer he tries to give as to whether PFAS are truly contaminants starts from the observation of microorganisms. These are the oldest organisms on Earth. They are a constant with an enormous capacity to adapt, even to new invaders.

New substances are called xenobiotics — substances that have never existed on Earth. Like PFAS, like plastics. 
Organisms were unaware of them, but they learned to interact with them.

Microorganisms are, therefore, allies in remediation. If we are dealing with an organic pollutant, microorganisms can learn to degrade and consume it.
There is a coevolution between microorganisms and the xenobiotics existing in the environment. New metabolic pathways are developing that can lead to degradation.

What are PFAS?

PFAS are a highly heterogeneous family of chemical molecules containing a covalent bond between carbon and fluorine. They are called “eternal pollutants” because they are difficult to degrade.

PFAS and microplastics move through the environment and enter humans. Plastics tend to become micro- and nanoplastics. The smaller they are, the more they tend to accumulate.

Plastifera, the communities of bacteria and microscopic fungi that have learned to colonise plastics. The degradation of plastics is still very limited. But fungi are beginning to degrade plastics.

Remediation is possible
PFAS can be remediated. The costs are high, but the costs associated with pollution are even higher.
There are enzymes that have learned to colonise PFAS.

Case study: Veneto
In Veneto, there has been a significant accumulation of PFAS in water and the environment. A study is underway to identify degradation genes.

His conclusion:
He is confident that solutions can be found to degrade PFAS.

Micro and nanoplastics — closing notes


If by 2050 we’ll have more plastic than fish in the sea, these bacteria need to hurry up.

From Pievani’s “material that nature forgot to invent” to Puglisi’s microbes slowly learning to eat it, one thing is clear: nature is trying to catch up. But time is not on our side.

We left the panel with more questions than answers—
Not just about causality and bioaccumulation, but about who to trust. Greenwashing wasn’t mentioned by name, but it hung in the air like the plastic cups of the Aquarium.

—

Coming Wednesday:
Micro and nanoplastics: what can we actually do? From daily choices to institutional action. 

Micro and nanoplastics: research status and scenarios Read More »

Climate action and the new materiality: when climate risk becomes a profit crisis

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Why climate risk is no longer a sustainability issue, but a financial one


What makes companies truly sensitive to climate action?

Profit.

Not moral pressure.
Not awareness campaigns.
And not even public outrage.

Profit.

And this is precisely why the new report, The Cost of Inaction, by Apparel Impact Institute (AII), feels different. It does not appeal to conscience. It speaks the only language that boardrooms consistently understand: financial survival.

The new materiality: from responsibility to financial necessity


For years, the fashion industry has discussed climate targets, net-zero pathways, decarbonisation roadmaps. The vocabulary has been refined. The pledges have multiplied—and with them, so has greenwashing.

But awareness without structural action changes very little. (We explored the knowledge gap here).

This report shifts the narrative. Climate risk is translated into numbers. And the numbers are not symbolic.

  • Operating margins could shrink by up to 34% by 2030
  • Losses could reach 67% by 2040
  • Under a net-zero transition scenario, the $1.77 trillion fashion industry could lose up to 70% of its value by 2040

This is no longer about “doing better.”
It is about remaining economically viable.

The three pressures that will reshape fashion


The report identifies three main financial risks:

  1. Rising carbon pricing
  2. Increasing raw material costs
  3. Higher and more volatile energy prices

The message is clear: delaying the energy transition increases exposure. Conventional operators heavily dependent on fossil fuels and coal will face multiplying costs.

Climate volatility is not a future scenario.
It is a cost driver already embedded in supply chains.

The most interesting part: action pays


The report is not apocalyptic. It is pragmatic.

It shows that early investments — particularly in supplier decarbonisation — create resilience and protect margins.

Incremental improvements such as: 

  • Energy efficiency
  • Heat recovery systems
  • Electrification
  • Renewable energy adoption

can deliver meaningful short-term relief while building long-term competitiveness. The report advises CFOs to view these not as costs, but as capital allocations that stabilise the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) and protect EBIT—a framing that transforms a sustainability expense into a margin-defence strategy.

Companies that de-risk their supply chains and decouple profitability from climate-sensitive inputs could face four to five times less exposure by 2040.

This is not activism.
This is financial strategy.

CFOs at the centre


One of the most revealing aspects of the report is who it addresses: chief financial officers and finance teams.

Climate strategy is no longer confined to sustainability departments. It now belongs in capital allocation, risk modelling, and governance discussions.

Kristina Elinder Liljas of AII describes the report as putting a “price tag” on delayed net-zero transition. And that phrase matters. Because once a risk is priced, it can no longer be ignored.

Even industry leaders — such as H&M Group — acknowledge that awareness without decisive action will not deliver science-based targets—a notable admission from a company emblematic of the fast-fashion business model.

However, when it comes to sustainability and climate change, fast fashion reveals a striking paradox. The overproduction model remains untouched — as if it were neutral, inevitable. Yet choosing not to change is itself a powerful act of choice. The fast-fashion perspective is not just limited; it is inherently flawed. The core issue is that maintaining an unchanged overproduction business model is not a viable option; it is the very barrier preventing real progress.

Climate action: collaboration is not optional


The report emphasises co-financing and collective investment. Supply chains are interconnected ecosystems. One actor alone cannot stabilise the system.

Lewis Perkins, CEO of AII, highlights that maintaining business stability in a climate-disrupted world requires industry-wide cooperation, channelled through initiatives like AII’s own Fashion Climate Fund, which pools brand capital to de-risk and accelerate supplier-level investments.

This is perhaps the uncomfortable truth: resilience is a collective effort.

Beyond fashion


Although focused on apparel, the message extends far beyond fashion.

Any industry that postpones climate mitigation is not protecting its profit. It is accumulating risk.

The cost of inaction is not abstract.
It is measurable.
And it compounds.

A final reflection


For years, we have framed sustainability as an ethical evolution. Perhaps we were speaking the wrong language. Ethics, it seems, has become unfashionable.

If profit is what finally moves companies, then maybe this is the real turning point: climate action is no longer about virtue.

It is about survival.

And when survival becomes the question, hesitation becomes the most expensive choice of all.

But a final irony remains: the very brands whose business depends on relentless overproduction are now positioned as architects of the solution. Can those who built the problem truly deliver the cure — or will profit and habit always win?

Climate action and the new materiality: when climate risk becomes a profit crisis Read More »