The World Under A Climate Worst-Case Scenario: Vināśa Kāle Viparīta Buddhi

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Highlights the institutional contradiction of reducing climate-risk visibility amid accelerating risks, providing a critical framework for studying disclosure rollback.

🏢実務担当者:Warns corporate teams against reducing disclosure efforts despite regulatory simplification, emphasizing the need to maintain supplier engagement and scenario analysis.

🏛政策担当者:Urges regulators to avoid weakening rules that ensure value-chain transparency and scenario analysis, framing simplification as a threat to long-term climate resilience.

This article argues that the weakening of climate and sustainability disclosure rules is creating dangerous blind spots at the wrong moment. Climate risk is accelerating, emissions remain high, and current global policies are still far from a safe warming pathway. Yet regulatory systems designed to improve transparency, due diligence, value-chain visibility, and corporate accountability are being narrowed, delayed, or softened. The Sanskrit phrase Vināśa Kāle Viparīta Buddhi — when destruction approaches, the intellect turns in the wrong direction — is used here as a framing idea, not as fatalism. It captures the institutional contradiction of reducing climate-risk visibility when stronger intelligence, disclosure, and governance are needed. The article examines recent regulatory rollback in the United States, CSRD/CSDDD simplification in the European Union, deforestation-rule delays, and the resulting blind spots in Scope 3 emissions, value-chain data, sector-specific risk, assurance quality, and mid-sized high-impact companies. It then compares this policy retreat with IPCC-backed worst-case climate pathways for 2100 and 2300, showing that delayed action is not merely an environmental problem but a long-term risk to habitability, food systems, water security, coastal infrastructure, economic stability, public health, migration, and geopolitical order. The central argument is that simplification is not the enemy; blindness is. Sustainability reporting should be made proportionate and decision-useful, but not weakened to the point where companies, investors, regulators, and boards lose sight of systemic climate risk. A credible corporate response must preserve climate-risk accounting, supplier engagement, scenario analysis, board-level oversight, evidence discipline, and resilience-based investment logic even where external disclosure requirements are reduced.

• Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/20113165first seen 2026-05-14 21:29:46 · last seen 2026-05-14 21:39:02