On June 21, global ocean temperatures outside the polar regions hit an unprecedented high, surpassing those recorded in 2023 and 2024, as reported by the Copernicus Climate Change Office and the Copernicus Oceanographic Office.
That day, temperatures soared to 20.86 degrees Celsius (69.54 degrees Fahrenheit), exceeding the 20.83 degrees Celsius (69.49 degrees Fahrenheit) documented in previous years, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Agency.
Additionally, the Copernicus Oceanographic Station noted a temperature spike to 21 degrees Celsius (69.8 degrees Fahrenheit), breaking the prior record from 2023 and 2024 by 0.1 degrees Celsius.
Richard Allan, a climate science professor at the University of Reading in the UK, stated during a phone interview, “This is consistent with our long-standing knowledge: the Earth’s warming is largely due to fossil fuel combustion, which releases significant greenhouse gases and impedes the planet’s ability to dissipate heat into space.”
Temperatures soared above 90 degrees in Chicago on Monday. Scott Olson/Getty Images
The oceans absorb over 90% of the Earth’s excess energy, primarily from fossil fuel combustion (oil, coal, gas), Allan notes. Rising ocean temperatures highlight urgent concerns regarding climate change and the intensified impact of El Niño.
This announcement coincides with a severe heat wave threatening parts of the United States as the Fourth of July weekend approaches. As of Wednesday, more than 46 million people were under heat warnings, according to the National Weather Service.
The National Weather Service cautioned that “dangerous heat” is intensifying across the eastern United States, with temperature highs expected to range from the mid-90s to over 100 degrees in certain areas.
Regions including the Ohio Valley, mid-Atlantic, and Northeast will experience record high temperatures through Thursday, with extreme heat expected to affect parts of Canada as well.
Visitors shield themselves from the sun at the Great American State Fair on the National Mall on Tuesday. Mark Schiefelbein/AP
Simultaneously, Europe has faced record-breaking heat, with more than 1,300 excess deaths reported since June 21 due to high temperatures, according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. source
France’s health ministry reported approximately 1,000 additional deaths than expected over the past week amid its severe heat wave.
Tedros commented, “As a result of climate change and global warming, ‘once-in-a-generation’ heatwave events have become almost an annual occurrence.” He emphasized that Europe is “the warmest continent on earth, heating at double the global average,” and that the infrastructure in European homes, workplaces, and schools “is ill-equipped for these extreme temperatures.”
The 27 degrees east meridian divides the Earth into two equally reflective halves.
Planetary Visions Limited/Science Photo Library
A significant line traversing Africa, Europe, Alaska, and the poles creates a division in the Earth that reflects equal amounts of light. This symmetry could have a vital influence on Earth’s climate system.
Research shows that the northern and southern hemispheres exhibit nearly equal albedo, with findings from Jiang Hao and colleagues from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration revealing an additional line of symmetry at 27 degrees east longitude and 153 degrees west longitude.
The hemispheres defined by this line demonstrate equality in three aspects: clear sky albedo, cloud reflectance, and ice-free ocean coverage. This symmetry has been consistent throughout 25 years of satellite data analyzed by Zhang et al.
Initially, Zhang suspected this symmetry might be coincidental. “Three factors led me to believe that East-West symmetry is significant: its uniqueness, its long-term persistence, and its triple symmetry nature,” he states. “Finding a stable, unique east-west split that balances land and ocean distribution alongside clear and cloudy sky reflectivity is no small feat, especially considering the dynamic nature of clouds.”
Analysis of 25 years of satellite data shows that while the east-west symmetry centers around 27 degrees east, its exact position shifts slightly year to year. Researchers have linked these minor fluctuations to the phases of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a global climate phenomenon tied to changes in Pacific Ocean temperatures.
“This symmetry could be more than just geometric happenstance,” says Zhang. “It may be involved in significant climate change mechanisms. ENSO could serve as a substantial adjustment factor that helps sustain long-term east-west symmetry centered at 27 degrees east.”
According to Ovind Hodnebrok from the International Center for Climate Research in Oslo, Norway, who was not part of the study, there were initial doubts regarding these findings.
“I was initially skeptical about the east-west symmetry at approximately 27 degrees east longitude. It seems intuitively less clear than the equatorial separation, leading me to suspect it could be coincidental,” Hodnebrok notes.
However, he now agrees that it may represent a “robust feature and potentially an intriguing characteristic of Earth.”
Hodnebrok also highlights the importance of ENSO connections. Unlike the north-south symmetry, which is reportedly weakening due to climate change impacts on sea ice and cloud formation, the east-west symmetry remains stable—though models suggest it could weaken over time, potentially indicating shifts in atmospheric circulation.
Martin Uecker and researchers at the University of New South Wales in Sydney assert that the east-west symmetry might simply be coincidental.
“Weather patterns and climate easily interact across longitudes due to the Earth’s rotation, which creates easterly and westerly wind bands that orbit the planet, facilitating east-west atmospheric perturbation propagation,” Uecker explains.
Zhang notes that mechanisms maintaining east-west symmetry could have significant implications for geoengineering initiatives. For instance, attempts to enhance albedo in one hemisphere might be undermined by broader feedback loops.
“To confidently assert claims about geoengineering effects, we must deepen our understanding of how clouds, circulation, precipitation, and planetary reflectivity interact within the Earth system,” Chan states.
Exploring Climate Fiction: Helen Phillips’ Award-Winning Novel “Hum”
“Hum”, set in an overheated futuristic metropolis, tells the compelling story of a mother’s struggle to protect her small family amidst relentless technological surveillance and climate change challenges. This year, Helen Phillips’ work won the prestigious Climate Fiction Award, a recognition supported by Climate Spring and valued at £10,000.
About the Award
The Climate Fiction Award, established to spotlight storytelling that engages with the realities of climate change, was previously awarded in 2025 to Abi Dalle for her novel And That’s Why I Roar. Phillips’ novel outshone other shortlisted titles, including Susanna Kwan’s tale of a flooded San Francisco in Wake Up in a Floating City and Maria Leva’s journey with a highly endangered snail in End Ring.
Judges’ Insights
Judge Friederike Otto, a professor of climate science at Imperial College London, praised “Hum” for addressing the core issues of privilege related to the climate crisis. Fellow judge and novelist Jesse Greengrass acknowledged the book’s exploration of existential anxiety, saying, “A book about how to deal with anxiety when nothing is right, or when every choice you make ends up making things worse.”
Story Overview
Set in a near-future city where super-intelligent robots known as Hams coexist with humans, the narrative centers around Mae, a mother fighting to keep her children away from addictive technology. Desperate for a natural escape, she embarks on a journey to a hidden oasis within the city, highlighting the struggles of parenthood in a technologically dominated environment.
Inspiration behind “Hum”
In a conversation with Alison Flood, Helen Phillips shared her inspirations, noting that every novel emerges from myriad small seeds. A personal incident involving targeted advertising sparked her contemplation of extreme algorithmic surveillance, subsequently shaping the central conflict faced by Mae.
Thematic Reflections
Phillips acknowledges her anxieties surrounding climate change, surveillance, and economic inequality as key influences in her writing process. A poignant quote from the book, delivered by a wise machine, states, “We know the world is damaged, but we don’t know what that means for our children’s lives.” This sentiment captures the collective fear many parents feel today.
Art Reflecting Reality
The themes in “Hum” are deeply rooted in current societal realities. Phillips reflects on Margaret Atwood’s famous quote from The Handmaid’s Tale, suggesting that many fictional narratives are extrapolations of real-life situations. This connection between reality and fiction serves to remind readers of the pressing issues at hand while allowing room for hope.
Looking Ahead
The emotional core of “Hum” resonates with the primary goal of nurturing connections—with family, the environment, and oneself. Phillips hopes that her work inspires readers to cherish what remains of nature, emphasizing the need to protect it for future generations.
The Impact of Storytelling
Phillips believes storytelling has the potential to spark meaningful discussions on climate change and human resilience. She asserts that while her writing stems from personal anxieties, it is not meant to provide direct solutions but rather to evoke curiosity and contemplation among readers.
A Commitment to Climate Fiction
Writing about climate issues has consistently been a priority for Phillips, evident even in her earlier works. Although she doesn’t set out to write a climate novel explicitly, themes of climate anxiety and environmental degradation remain central to her storytelling.
Hope for the Future
When asked about the future of her characters and humanity, Phillips emphasizes the necessity of connection, urging collective efforts to value and care for our planet. She believes that recognizing each other’s humanity is crucial in facing the climate crisis.
Exciting new findings from NASA’s Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) spacecraft indicate that the Zwan-Wolf effect—where charged particles are expelled through magnetic structures known as flux tubes—is also influencing Mars’ upper atmosphere. This phenomenon was previously believed to be exclusive to Earth’s magnetosphere.
An artistic rendering of the Zwan-Wolf effect on Mars observed by NASA’s MAVEN mission. Image credit: LASP/CU Boulder.
“While analyzing MAVEN data, we discovered a remarkable change,” said Dr. Christopher Fowler, a researcher at West Virginia University.
“We never anticipated this effect because it had not been documented in any planet’s atmosphere before.”
The Zwan-Wolf effect was first identified in 1976 and had only been recorded within planetary magnetospheres until now.
In contrast to Earth, Mars lacks a global magnetic field, which significantly impacts how it interacts with solar wind and space weather.
The MAVEN spacecraft detected the Zwan-Wolf effect within Mars’ ionosphere—less than 200 km above the surface—where a notable number of charged particles reside.
Mars has an induced magnetosphere, produced by solar wind interacting with its ionosphere, but this field’s size and form can vary dramatically due to large solar wind and space weather events.
This variability is what Dr. Fowler and his team observed in MAVEN data during a massive solar storm on Mars.
The team suspects that the Zwan-Wolf effect could be constantly occurring in Mars’ ionosphere but at levels undetectable by MAVEN’s instruments.
Currently, space weather phenomena appear to have intensified, allowing researchers to observe it in their findings.
Initially, the authors noticed intriguing fluctuations in the magnetic field as the spacecraft traversed the Martian atmosphere.
To clarify these observations, they conducted a more detailed analysis using multiple MAVEN instruments, including charged particle measurement capabilities in the ionosphere.
Further analysis revealed additional fascinating features within the data.
After eliminating other possibilities, they identified the Zwan-Wolf effect as the reason for the observations.
“No one anticipated this effect in the atmosphere,” Dr. Fowler remarked.
“This discovery is thrilling; it introduces complexities in physics that remain unexplored and sheds light on new ways solar and space weather can influence Mars’ atmospheric dynamics.”
“Understanding the Zwan-Wolf effect on Mars enhances our knowledge of space weather’s impact and offers fresh insights into similar phenomena on non-magnetic celestial bodies like Venus and Saturn’s moon Titan.”
“These observations underscore the need to comprehend how large-scale space weather fluctuations can lead to environmental changes on Mars, potentially affecting assets both on the planet and in its vicinity.”
“Understanding space weather’s interactions with Mars is vital,” stated Dr. Shannon Currie, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Institute for Atmospheric and Space Physics and MAVEN’s principal investigator.
“The MAVEN team continues to analyze our dataset for new discoveries and connections between our Sun and Mars.”
For a detailed look at this research, see the study published in this week’s edition of Nature Communications.
_____
C.M. Fowler et al. 2026. The Zwan-Wolf effect is detected in the ionosphere of Mars. Nat Commun, 17, 4224; doi: 10.1038/s41467-026-72251-9
In 2025, wildfires will severely impact the boreal forest of Manitoba, Canada.
Anadolu (via Getty Images)
The increasing frequency of wildfires across the Arctic is having a more substantial impact on global warming than previously understood. While initial assumptions suggested that primarily recent vegetation was burning, soil core studies reveal that these fires are igniting ancient carbon deposits accumulated for over 5,000 years.
“Soil combustion has the potential to release long-term stored carbon from soil, which was previously considered a carbon sink,” explains Meri Rappel from the Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki. Current climate models neglect the release of this ancient carbon.
In the cold conditions of the Arctic, plant growth is slow, leading to the accumulation of organic matter in the soil as peat and other forms over centuries or even millennia. This factor positions Arctic and adjacent boreal soils as significant carbon sinks, which effectively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
However, increasing wildfire incidents are changing this dynamic. Rappel’s research team has collected soil cores from recently burned areas to study the impact of these fires.
Their findings indicate that while surface vegetation may burn quickly, the underlying organic material smolders for a longer duration, releasing considerable amounts of soot and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Black carbon, a byproduct of these fires, absorbs sunlight, contributing directly to atmospheric warming. Moreover, in colder regions, black carbon can accumulate on ice and snow, accelerating melting processes that would otherwise not occur.
“We discovered that the age of the carbon released during fires varied significantly depending on soil depth and burn intensity,” Rappel stated during the European Geosciences Union Conference in Vienna.
The risk of releasing ancient carbon is particularly high as it tends to increase toward the North Pole, where organic matter accumulates close to the surface. For instance, in Canada’s Northwest Territories, fires are penetrating soil just a few centimeters deep, unleashing carbon stored for up to 400 years.
In Greenland, fires can consume up to 10 centimeters of soil, releasing carbon that is over 560 years old, with some areas experiencing burns of up to 15 centimeters, releasing carbon that has been stored for 1,000 years.
Remarkably, a boreal forest site in Quebec, Canada, has been identified where fires released carbon dating back 5,000 years. “However, this occurrence is not widespread,” said Ruppel at the conference.
The critical question remains: how much ancient carbon is currently being released by wildfires? Rappel emphasizes that this study is merely the starting point, indicating the need for further research to quantify the released carbon.
“Rappel’s work is vital and underscores the urgency,” noted Sandy Harrison from the University of Reading. “It’s evident that substantial old carbon exists in high-latitude soils and peat. As new fire regimes evolve, destroying topsoil layers and peatlands, this ancient carbon will be released into the atmosphere.”
Sure! Here’s the content rewritten for better SEO, while keeping the HTML structure intact.
Wildfires are currently raging across southern Georgia and northern Florida, exacerbated by intense heat, strong winds, severe drought, and dry vegetation left from previous hurricanes. These elements have created a perfect storm for wildfires in the region.
Subscribe to read this story without ads
Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.
This situation is exactly what climate scientists have been warning about for decades as our planet continues to warm.
“This is certainly abnormal, but aligns with our concerns regarding climate change,” explained Caitlin Trudeau, a climate scientist at Climate Central, a nonprofit scientific research organization. “These events highlight the dramatic changes occurring in our climate.”
The wildfires are consuming thousands of acres across both states. Notably, a wildfire in Atkinson, Georgia, has already destroyed approximately 90 homes since its ignition on Monday.
In response to these fires, multiple counties, including those in Georgia, have implemented burn bans, leading to Gov. Brian Kemp declaring a state of emergency on Wednesday across 91 counties.
The wildfires are primarily attributed to widespread drought conditions in the Southeast, exacerbated by remnants of previous hurricanes—circumstances tied to climate change.
Specifically, Hurricane Helen, which made landfall in Florida’s Big Bend area as a Category 4 storm in 2024, left behind scorched trees, branches, and other dry vegetation.
“It’s as if the hurricane stripped a significant number of trees and laid everything bare in that area,” Trudeau noted. “The remains were exposed to the sun, and wood with high oil content becomes extremely flammable when dry.”
This dry vegetation significantly amplifies wildfire risks, fostering their growth and increasing their destructiveness.
Researchers warn that catastrophic wildfires will become increasingly prevalent in a warming world. Studies indicate wildfires will not only occur more frequently but will also be more devastating due to climate change—a situation with serious environmental, economic, and health repercussions for communities nationwide and globally.
Trudeau emphasized that even in humid areas like the Southeast—traditionally not considered as wildfire-prone—the risks are evolving under climate change.
“This is the reality we’ve been anticipating with climate change,” she said. “Certain parts of the Southeast are extremely dry now. Although these regions have high humidity, climate change has intensified atmospheric thirst. As temperatures rise, the amount of water drawn from the landscape and extracted from plants and soils increases as well.”
For a wildfire to ignite, two key elements must be present: fire-prone weather, which includes dry conditions, lightning, and wind, and “fuel,” such as dead wood, dry leaves, and other flammable vegetation.
As temperatures rise due to climate change, the atmosphere can efficiently extract moisture from trees and soils. In the event of prolonged droughts, insufficient rainfall exacerbates the potential for destructive wildfires.
Currently, all of Florida is experiencing some level of drought, with much of the Panhandle region categorized as facing “extreme” or “exceptional” drought, according to the US Drought Monitor. Likewise, 71% of Georgia is experiencing “extreme” or “exceptional” drought, particularly in southern regions.
For Trudeau, the wildfires witnessed this week serve as a stark indication of climate change’s catastrophic effects on natural ecosystems, including increased fire activity in areas historically deemed humid.
“This is why we are facing such an extraordinary situation right now,” Trudeau concluded. “It’s truly a perfect storm.”
This version integrates keywords related to wildfires, climate change, and specific regions to improve its search engine optimization (SEO) effectiveness.
Recent models predict the emergence of an exceptionally strong El Niño climate phase later this year, potentially the strongest recorded.
This event is being referred to as “Super El Niño” or “Godzilla El Niño,” which could lead to severe droughts in certain regions and catastrophic flooding in others, contributing to the hottest year on record globally.
“Projections indicate that the tropical Pacific Ocean will warm at an unprecedented rate this century,” says Adam Scaife from the UK’s Met Office. “Something unusual is clearly happening.”
What is Super El Niño?
El Niño is a recurring climate phenomenon that significantly raises temperatures and disrupts global weather patterns. This occurs when the trade winds over the tropical Pacific Ocean weaken, disrupting upwelling of cold water and causing warm surface water to accumulate in the central and eastern Pacific. As a result, atmospheric circulation is altered.
El Niño is characterized by sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific exceeding 0.5 degrees Celsius above the long-term average. A “super” El Niño occurs when this temperature rise exceeds 2 degrees Celsius.
The name El Niño, meaning “the Christ child,” originates from observations by Peruvian fishermen who noted that warming typically peaks in December.
While El Niño events occur every few years, “super” events have been recorded in 1982-1983, 1997-1998, and 2015-2016.
What are the Chances of a Super El Niño Occurring?
Westerly winds during March and early April have carried warm water toward the central and eastern Pacific, paving the way for a significant El Niño event. The Japan Meteorological Agency anticipates that the temperature anomaly could reach nearly 2 degrees Celsius by September. Additionally, models from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) indicate a 50% chance of reaching 2.5 degrees Celsius by October.
The National Weather Service estimates a 25% chance of experiencing a Super El Niño by year’s end. If predictions hold that temperature anomalies in the central Pacific exceed 3 degrees Celsius by September, we could witness the strongest El Niño ever recorded.
Currently, signs of El Niño’s development remain weak, and models struggle to provide accurate forecasts, a challenge known as the “spring predictability barrier.” Meteorologists expect to have clearer insights into El Niño’s strength by May or June.
What are the Weather Impacts?
Changes in atmospheric circulation due to El Niño can have far-reaching consequences, including substantial economic damage, crop failures, coral bleaching, and the spread of diseases. “Conditions are chaotic and well outside normal ranges,” states Tim Stockdale from ECMWF. “It’s not solely about increased rainfall; these changes are occurring in areas typically shielded from such storms.”
Typically, El Niño brings intensified storms and wet weather to southern coastlines of the Americas, the Horn of Africa, and China, elevating flooding risks. Conversely, regions like Australia, Southeast Asia, south-central Africa, India, and the Amazon rainforest are likely to face hotter, drier conditions, heightening the potential for droughts, heat waves, and wildfires.
In the UK and northwestern Europe, the effects are less predictable, with El Niño potentially leading to warmer summers and colder winters, although other climatic factors may also contribute to milder, wetter winters.
Even after reaching its peak, El Niño’s damaging effects can persist. Following the Super El Niño of 1997-1998, heavy rains resulted in devastating floods in China’s densely populated Yangtze River basin, claiming over 3,000 lives, destroying 15 million homes, and causing $20 billion in economic losses.
A silver lining is that fewer hurricanes typically form in the Caribbean and off the U.S. east coast during El Niño, as enhanced atmospheric circulation increases wind shear, causing storms to dissipate quickly rather than evolving into major hurricanes.
How Will El Niño Affect Climate?
If climate change is likened to a slowly rising tide, El Niño acts as a powerful wave that temporarily elevates temperatures even further. A strong El Niño could lead to a global temperature increase of 0.2°C.
The last significant El Niño event in 2024 contributed to record-high global temperatures, briefly surpassing the Paris Agreement limit of 1.5°C for the first time. Many anticipate that a Super El Niño in 2027 could also set a new record.
“As we approach 1.4°C, it is very plausible that we will exceed the 1.5°C threshold in 2027,” Scaife noted. “Global warming is inching closer to the Paris Agreement limits.”
Will More Super El Niño Events Occur?
Despite rising El Niño temperatures in the central Pacific due to climate change, long-term temperature averages remain consistent, suggesting that we may not see an increase in the frequency or intensity of El Niño events. Consequently, the National Weather Service has begun to classify El Niño based on the central Pacific’s temperature relative to other tropical regions, although this new classification has not yet gained widespread acceptance.
Both El Niño and its counterpart, La Niña, have been observed with greater frequency and intensity over the past 50 to 60 years. One study indicated that climate change has intensified the temperature variation in the central Pacific by about 10%. However, with only 150 years of reliable data available, early measurements are often unreliable, leading many scientists to be cautious about asserting that climate change has intensified El Niño.
“Will climate change influence El Niño events? That remains a complex question,” Stockdale stated. “The answer is likely yes.”
It is evident that global warming exacerbates the consequences of El Niño. As global temperatures rise, evaporation heights increase, leading to higher atmospheric moisture retention and intensified extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods.
“We refer to this as the intensification of the water cycle,” Stockdale explained. “El Niño can cause dramatic shifts in typical precipitation patterns, likely compounded by climate change.”
Have you come across impressive graphs indicating a decline in carbon dioxide levels and temperatures by the end of this century? But how is this possible? The prevailing idea is to utilize biomass, combust it for energy, and subsequently capture and store the emitted CO2. It sounds like a solution, right?
Despite its potential, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has proven to be a significant failure. The technology lacks large-scale implementation, primarily due to exorbitant costs, potential threats to biodiversity, and its ineffectiveness in genuinely reducing emissions. In fact, it has been shown to increase CO2 emissions in critical contexts.
As documented by Leo Hickman from CarbonBrief, BECCS was conceived in 2001 by Swedish researchers aiming to enable paper mills to acquire carbon credits. This theoretical framework was adopted by climate modelers in 2005 for climate scenarios predicting a temperature rise above 1.5°C followed by a decline. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2014 report amplified the idea, suggesting massive carbon removal through BECCS, effectively marketing an untested technology as the paramount solution to climate change.
In 2015, Drax Energy made headlines by pledging to transition its coal-fired plants to wood pellet combustion while capturing CO2. Fast forward a decade, and while the Drax facility continues to burn wood pellets, carbon capture remains unrealized. According to a recent report by Politico, Drax has halted its carbon capture ambitions, leaving flagship bioenergy initiatives deeply compromised. A spokesperson claimed, “We still view BECCS as a long-term option for this site,” but its future remains uncertain.
Although there are minor BECCS projects in various stages globally, the concept has not matured as anticipated over the past decade. This stagnation is attributed to substantial subsidy demands and the realization of its high costs; as Tim Searchinger from Princeton University aptly states, “It’s shockingly expensive.”
While abstaining from deploying this technology might seem detrimental, it’s actually beneficial since it simply doesn’t work effectively within crucial timeframes. “There may be some scenarios predicting negative emissions, but the volumes are minimal and the benefits won’t materialize for decades,” Searchinger explains.
To better inform policymakers, he and his team have developed computer models simulating carbon flows. These models indicate that BECCS could take up to 150 years to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, performing worse than natural gas combustion without carbon capture for several decades, and potentially leading to higher energy bills.
The fundamental issue lies within BECCS’s methodology. It reallocates CO2 stored in forests to potentially subterranean structures for storage, although a significant portion is lost in transit, re-entering the atmosphere.
Initially, much of the carbon from harvested forests is never transported to power plants; decaying roots and harvested vegetation emit CO2 back into the environment. Wood combustion releases twice the CO2 per energy unit compared to natural gas, while the cooler combustion temperatures limit energy conversion efficiencies. Moreover, carbon capture is energy-intensive, necessitating the burning of additional wood to sustain the capture process, capturing only about 85% of produced CO2 emissions.
A more nuanced challenge arises in those advocating for wood utilization in BECCS, arguing it’s acceptable as long as carbon removal doesn’t outpace forest absorption. However, climate models presume that increased CO2 will enhance forest carbon absorption, or in technical jargon, that land sinks will continue to grow. This perspective conflates sustainable harvesting with actions that undermine existing climate mitigation efforts.
These concerns resonate across various BECCS initiatives involving both slow-growing trees and fast-growing crops like grasses. While theoretically profitable in underutilized agricultural land scenarios, the reality depicts ongoing deforestation in rainforests to expand farmland for food production, which would be catastrophic for biodiversity.
The absence of BECCS raises questions about future CO2 stabilization, yet prioritizing the halt of rising CO2 levels is crucial. As Searchinger advocates, “We must expedite the transition to wind and solar energy as swiftly as possible.”
You’ve likely encountered alarming visuals depicting the decline of carbon dioxide levels and temperatures by the end of this century. How is this transformation possible? The proposed solution is to harvest biomass, burn it for energy, and subsequently capture and store the emitted CO2. Voilà, problem solved!
This concept, known as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), has faced significant challenges. Despite theoretical support, it has not been successfully deployed at the required scale. Key issues include prohibitive costs, detrimental effects on biodiversity, and, troublingly, potential increases in CO2 emissions over critical timeframes.
As Leo Hickman of CarbonBrief outlines, BECCS first emerged in 2001 through Swedish researchers aiming to allow paper mills to earn carbon credits. By 2005, theoretical models employed this idea to advocate for scenarios involving temperature regulation above 1.5°C. The 2014 IPCC report also highlighted models that assumed significant carbon removal via BECCS, establishing a solution that, despite its non-existence, gained official endorsement.
In 2015, Drax Energy announced intentions to convert coal-fired power plants to utilize wood pellets, claiming to capture and store CO2 effectively.
Fast forward ten years, and while Drax remains operational on wood pellets, it has failed to capture any carbon. Recently, as Politico reported, the company has stalled its carbon capture plans, leaving the world’s most prominent bioenergy initiatives effectively in limbo, as a Drax spokesperson noted: “We still consider BECCS as a potential option for this site, but it is much more long-term than originally planned.”
Although numerous smaller initiatives exist globally, it’s evident that BECCS is not gaining traction as envisioned a decade ago. The driving factor? Government reluctance to fund the substantial subsidies required. Tim Searchinger from Princeton University emphasizes that “it’s shockingly expensive.”
While the absence of deploying this technology seems detrimental, it is, in fact, beneficial, as it doesn’t produce the anticipated results within feasible timelines. Searchinger states, “There are likely unrealistic scenarios where negative emissions occur; however, the scale is limited and benefits would take decades to materialize.”
To assist policymakers, new computer models analyzing related carbon flows allow for a hands-on approach to evaluate different scenarios. The models indicate that BECCS could take up to 150 years to effectively remove CO2 from the atmosphere, initially performing worse than natural gas combustion without carbon capture. Additionally, this process could drastically increase electricity bills.
Why does this occur? Essentially, BECCS transforms carbon stored in forests to CO2, which is then transferred to alternate storage solutions, often leading to significant losses released back into the atmosphere.
Notably, much forest carbon remains unutilized. The root systems and surrounding vegetation degrade during harvesting, releasing additional CO2. Moreover, burning wood generates twice the carbon per energy unit compared to natural gas, while the cooler combustion temperatures reduce electricity conversion efficiency. Carbon capture itself is energy-intensive, compelling power plants to burn extra wood to sustain the capture process, which at most captures about 85% of emitted CO2.
There’s a nuanced argument surrounding the use of wood in BECCS. Some assert it’s acceptable, provided the carbon extraction does not outpace forest growth. However, climate models presume that CO2 fertilization will enhance forest carbon uptake, which could hinder the climate change resolutions we currently rely on.
Similar issues affect many BECCS scenarios, particularly those advocating for the use of slow-growing trees or rapid energy crops. While idle farmland could potentially yield some profits, in the broader context, global deforestation continues to clear land for food cultivation, exacerbating biodiversity losses.
Without BECCS, plans to stabilize CO2 levels appear uncertain. For now, our priority should be curbing CO2 emissions. As Searchinger emphasizes, “We need to accelerate the transition to wind and solar energy as much as possible.”
The United States stands to endure the most severe economic consequences of climate change compared to any other nation worldwide. This trend is projected to continue, exacerbating existing challenges.
According to recent research from Stanford University, scientists have quantified the economic losses linked to emissions from major fossil fuel contributors.
Lead author Marshall Burke, a professor of environmental and social sciences, highlighted the aim of the study: to establish a clear link between specific emissions and their economic repercussions. In an interview with BBC Science Focus, he stated, “This ‘loss and damage’ is a critical aspect of climate change that remains largely unaddressed.”
Burke noted, “The international community has struggled with formally defining this issue or systematically estimating which emissions are impacting which countries. Our study strives to bridge that gap.”
Remarkably, from 1990 to 2020, the U.S. emerged as the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to approximately $10.2 trillion (£7.6 trillion) in global damages.
Furthermore, the study found that the U.S. also incurred the largest climate change losses, amounting to $16.2 trillion (£12.2 trillion).
“America has suffered more,” Burke noted, explaining that even though these emissions are a substantial source of damage, they have also caused significant harm to the U.S. economy itself.
In addition, U.S. emissions have inflicted considerable damage globally. For instance, scientists estimate that the European Union faced damages of $1.4 trillion (£1.1 trillion), while India suffered around $500 billion (£375 billion) in damages, and Brazil incurred losses of about $330 billion (£250 billion).
Burke emphasized the gravity of the situation, saying, “The estimated damages already inflicted by climate change are staggering, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars.”
The European Union is estimated to be the second most affected entity after the U.S., sustaining damages worth $6.4 trillion (£4.8 trillion), despite being the third largest emitter.
In stark contrast, the UK faced losses of about $1.1 trillion (£830 billion) and damages of approximately $880 billion (£660 billion).
Graph illustrating global economic damage attributed to countries and political entities (left) and projected economic losses for individual nations due to climate change (right) from 1990 to 2020 – Credit: Burke et al 2026, Nature
The study presents the relationship between emitters and affected nations as akin to a household managing waste. In this analogy, the waste symbolizes carbon dioxide emissions, and the study meticulously mapped out the origins, pathways, and ultimate impacts of this ‘waste.’
A critical component of the research was examining Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which allowed researchers to assess the repercussions of climate change on various sectors, including agriculture, health, and workplace productivity.
“Temperature fluctuations significantly affect the global economy,” Burke said. “Our research aims to connect these impacts with upstream emissions from global emitters.”
However, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere behaves differently from traditional waste. The repercussions are long-lasting, worsening over time.
“The future damage stemming from past emissions will far surpass the damages already experienced,” Burke warned. “As long as carbon remains in the atmosphere, damage will continue, and the impact over the coming century will likely be exponentially greater than what we’ve faced thus far.”
Rebecca Solnit: “We have so much power and so many victories.”
Albert Llop/NurPhoto/Shutterstock
Rebecca Solnit, a renowned activist and author of over 25 books, is celebrated for her insightful essays, including her latest work, The Beginning Comes After the End.
This book emphasizes how societal transformations in rights and consciousness have unfolded over the past 50 years, driven by a newfound appreciation for the interdependence of humanity and nature. Rebecca recently shared her insights on New Scientist’s podcast The World, the Universe, and Us, discussing her writing journey and future directions.
Rowan Hooper: Let’s start with a quote from your work by scholar Thomas Berry. In 1978, he mentioned that the Earth faces challenges due to a lack of compelling narratives. This resonates with ecologist David Abram’s assertion that we cannot restore our planet without reimagining its story. Why is a new narrative essential?
Rebecca Solnit: Many new narratives might be unfamiliar to those shaped by industrial capitalism. For numerous Indigenous cultures, these stories have long been told. Berry’s statement came at a time when colonial culture seemed all-encompassing, yet we now recognize the crucial role many old narratives are playing as they resurface.
Watching Native American communities reclaim their land, language, and pride has been incredibly inspiring. They are redefining human-nature interactions and assume key roles in the climate movement, changing our global perspective.
This period of colonialism and industrialism might be viewed as an unfortunate detour—now confronted with consequences, such as climate chaos. We must integrate old stories with new scientific understandings of interconnectedness.
One major theme in your book is our intrinsic connection to nature and the growing scientific recognition of this fact.
I wrote this book to highlight how many live in an eternal present, forgetting the dramatic changes our world has undergone. In my youth, the separation of nature and culture was the norm. Today, captivating research showcases our inseparability from nature.
Lynn Margulis’s groundbreaking work in microbiology illustrates how cooperation and symbiosis shape life, challenging traditional competition-based narratives.
Every element in an ecosystem contributes to the whole, and removing one can be detrimental—this contrasts sharply with the mechanical view of managing nature that often leads to disastrous practices.
Indeed, addressing the relentless capitalism that strains our planet will require concerted effort.
Yet, it’s crucial to acknowledge that research consistently shows a strong global desire for climate action and environmental protection, with only a minority benefiting directly from fossil fuels resisting necessary transitions.
We are making strides with innovative agricultural practices and renewable energy initiatives, but these changes aren’t happening fast enough. Climate action requires urgency as historical human rights movements illustrate.
“
Many people seem to live in an eternal present where they don’t remember how the world has changed “
Your previous work, Hope in the Darkness, during the George W. Bush era, highlighted activist efforts for change. Given recent shifts under President Trump’s administration, is your new book a sequel?
Hope in the Darkness aimed to reshape expectations of change, illustrating that activism often involves slow, indirect progress. We must appreciate culture and grassroots movements as essential forces in transforming our world.
This book underscores how much has changed; we inhabit a distinctly different world than before. I strive to provide a deeper, long-term outlook to inspire ongoing efforts. Recognizing our collective power is crucial, as power and responsibility are inexorably linked.
Every generation reflects on past conditions, yet recent transformations have been rapid. Residing in San Francisco, a city once synonymous with counterculture, now embodies technological dominance. What has this shift cost us?
Living in the birthplace of the Sierra Club, I’m pained to see the environmental ethos overshadowed by capitalist ambitions. Technologies could have been developed with public welfare in mind rather than profit, especially in AI and social media.
California’s commitment to solar energy is robust, according to Solnit.
MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images
Your insights mirror climatologist Tim Lenton’s recent work, Positive Turning Point, which discusses how small actions culminate in significant change. You highlight often-ignored victories.
Throughout my life, some suggested that feminism had failed, demanding to undo millennia of patriarchy in mere decades. Yet we’re making impressive progress, and the fight continues. The observable backlash reflects fear of change, not its absence.
I grew up in times when environmental negligence was rampant. Today, California leads in renewable energy, often producing over 100 percent of its daily electricity from solar sources. The scale of this revolution is breathtaking, contrasting the mayfly’s short-term perspective.
By reclaiming our history, we can appreciate the significant strides in rights and equality. The narrative is ongoing—we are at a pivotal chapter where uncertainty can foster hope. Even amidst challenges, we must acknowledge our achievements and the power that lies within.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), which manages the largest federal climate research center in the U.S., has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
View the lawsuit. This legal action disputes the administration’s decision to dismantle NCAR, alleging a “systematic campaign of punishment and coercion” against Colorado amidst ongoing tensions between President Donald Trump and Governor Jared Polis.
The report submitted by UCAR, a leading non-profit organization in climate science and weather modeling based in Boulder, Colorado, follows the Trump administration’s announcement in December about plans to dismantle the research center.
The lawsuit claims that “UCAR and NCAR are collateral damage” in this broader conflict.
The disagreement between Trump and Polis arises from concerns regarding mail-in voting in Colorado and the prosecution of a county clerk convicted of tampering with election equipment during the 2020 presidential election. According to the complaint, Trump pressured Polis to release the clerk while banning mail-in voting.
Filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado, the lawsuit details a purported “retaliatory campaign” targeting NCAR by multiple federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
So far, three named federal agencies have not provided comments regarding the lawsuit, except for the NSF, which stated it does not comment on ongoing litigation.
Additionally, Colorado is pursuing legal actions related to the alleged campaign of retribution against the state.
The lawsuit contends that the Trump administration’s decision to relocate the U.S. Space Command, cut $109 million in transportation funding, and impose new requirements on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is part of a punitive strategy against Colorado.
District judges have only ruled on one matter in this case concerning SNAP. The administration argued that there was sufficient fraud in Colorado to necessitate a pilot program; however, a district judge ruled in favor of the state by issuing a preliminary injunction, which outlined the reasons in a court order.
UCAR’s complaint shares similar allegations against the federal government, claiming that a “gag order” was issued to silence NCAR employees regarding the reorganization. It also points to the termination of a multimillion-dollar climate adaptation research contract and new unlawful reporting requirements imposed on NCAR and UCAR. Furthermore, the complaint details attempts to remove the center’s supercomputing facility from UCAR’s administration.
The complaint states, “The agency’s ultimate goal is the complete destruction of NCAR,” referencing a January NSF announcement about restructuring the agency while seeking public proposals for new uses for NCAR’s Boulder campus, including various public or private uses.
The allegations within the complaint argue that recent federal actions contravene the Administrative Procedure Act and request the court to halt specific lawsuits, such as the relocation of NCAR’s supercomputing facility and cancellation of NOAA grants.
UCAR and NCAR collectively employ around 1,400 scientists, engineers, and support personnel focusing on key areas like hurricane forecasting, wildfire monitoring, weather predictions, and space weather research. NCAR hosts advanced supercomputers essential for complex climate modeling tasks.
In a statement on their website, UCAR emphasized that the actions taken by the federal agencies pose significant threats to national security, public safety, and economic stability and jeopardize the U.S.’s leadership role in climate and weather forecasting.
UCAR has stated that it will refrain from further comments until the lawsuit is resolved.
Two king penguins sing in the middle of a colony on Possession Island, a French territory in the southern Indian Ocean.
Gael Baldon (CSM/CNRS/IPEV)
King penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) are thriving in the changing subantarctic climate. As temperatures rise, the survival rates of chicks reaching adulthood are also on the rise. While these penguins appear to be benefiting from climate change, researchers caution that they may eventually face challenges in accessing essential food sources.
In 2023, king penguin chicks on French Possession Island began hatching approximately 19 days earlier than in 2000. With a longer breeding season, the survival rate of chicks has increased to an average of 62%, compared to 44% in 2000, as reported by Gael Bardon from the Monaco Science Center and colleagues.
“King penguins are showing rapid changes that seem positive in the short term, but the long-term effects are still uncertain,” said Burdon.
Each summer, a pair of king penguins, easily recognized by their bright yellow-orange neck feathers, tend to a single egg, which hatches into a fluffy brown chick about two months later. After laying eggs, the parents leave the chicks on the island and swim hundreds of kilometers south to the polar front, where warm and cold currents create a nutrient-rich environment for plankton growth. The penguins catch small lanternfish that feed on this plankton and return to nourish their young.
Warmer waters may boost lanternfish populations. The study suggests that the early breeding of king penguins correlates with rising sea surface temperatures and decreasing plankton concentrations, indicating potential increases in lanternfish availability.
Burdon explained that this early breeding gives chicks more time to feed and gain weight before the challenging winter months, thus reducing the risk of starvation.
Although the Possession Island population appears stable due to improved chick survival, there may be penguins migrating to other islands, leading to population growth in new colonies.
A flock of king penguins on Possession Island
Gael Baldon (CSM/CNRS/IPEV)
Team members emphasize that the king penguin’s shift to early breeding is occurring faster than that of most polar species, serving as a “wake-up call” regarding environmental changes. Celine le Bohec from the Monaco Science Center shared these insights.
In recent years, abnormal warmth has caused the polar front to shift south, compelling king penguins to travel farther for food, resulting in declining chick survival and potential population decreases on Possession Island. Without islands beyond Possession Island for migration, the penguins are forced to expand their foraging areas. A study indicated that this population could diminish in the coming decades if the polar front continues to shift southward gradually. Research also suggests compromising food availability could be a critical issue.
“Rapid changes that extend the breeding cycle are favorable, but food availability on the polar frontier may collapse if colonies distance themselves too far,” cautions Le Bohec. “We risk reaching a tipping point.”
On the optimistic side, some researchers like Lewis Halsey, a professor at the University of Roehampton, UK, noted the resilience of penguins on Possession Island after the 2004 mini-tsunami. He highlighted that penguins also consume other nearby foods, such as squid, suggesting that while populations may decline, extinction is unlikely. “They demonstrate remarkable flexibility, indicating that a collapse is improbable.”
Scientists had hoped that the king penguin’s reproductive stability would hold as they adapted to climate changes, and the actual improvement in reproduction is a promising sign, according to Tom Hart from Oxford Brookes University, UK.
“This is encouraging news. Although conditions can change, king penguins are currently outperforming many of their counterparts in overall penguin populations, which are generally declining,” he remarked. “This is a rare success story.”
Churchill Polar Bear Adventures: Canada
Embark on a journey to Churchill in northern Canada, known as the “Polar Bear Capital of the World,” and experience the highest concentration of these iconic Arctic predators. Discover their evolutionary history, observe their natural behavior, and understand the delicate balance of the Arctic ecosystem firsthand.
New Scientist Book Club’s February selection: Tim Winton’s novel ‘Juice’
The New Scientist Book Club transitioned from exploring the implications of sex robots in January to discussing Sierra Greer’s impactful work, Anniebot, in February, alongside Tim Winton’s vivid portrayal of an Australian future in Juice.
Winton’s narrative is conveyed through an anonymous protagonist detailing life in a dangerously heated world, gradually revealing his role in administering punishment to those whose actions exacerbated climate change and exploring the depths of survival.
I found Juice to be a captivating read—utterly gripping and profoundly unsettling. But what were the book club’s impressions? The novel spurred lively discussions on our platform. In a positive review, Glen Johnson expressed his admiration, noting Winton’s adept descriptions of adaptations in a familiar climate zone, referring to the narrative as a “natural evolution of the resourceful Australian landscape.”
Victor Churchill echoed this sentiment: “Despite the harsh circumstances, it offers a surprisingly optimistic tone. While the plot presented some hurdles, it was overall exceptionally engaging.” He appreciated how the author allows readers intimate moments of discovery through the protagonist’s journey.
Kim Woodhams Crawford shared similar thoughts, commending the novel’s forecasts about potential climate disasters. “Regardless of political narratives, there’s no escaping the reality of severe temperature rises,” she cautioned.
However, not all responses were overwhelmingly positive. “Admittedly, I struggled with the novel’s initial chapters and nearly stopped reading,” Linda Jones confessed. “But once the backstory unfolded, my interest spiked dramatically.” Phil Gurski also remarked on the slow start of the book.
Opinions diverged on Winton’s narrative style. While some appreciated the unique voice of the imprisoned protagonist, others found it less convincing. “The writing evokes a sense of magical realism,” Gosia Furmanik suggested, although Jacqueline Ferrand posed a critical question: “In a dystopian reality, would a stranger truly want to know the complete history of your past?” Steve Swann, on the other hand, expressed frustration, stating he’d likely have taken drastic action if placed in the protagonist’s shoes.
A major topic of debate was the novel’s status as a dystopia. Winton himself wrote in an essay for us, “Dystopia is sometimes a word that desensitizes us to reality, and we can’t afford that.” Members engaged deeply with this theme.
Victor expressed, “This doesn’t feel like a dystopia per se; I perceive it more as a post-dystopian narrative where society has adapted to its harsh realities.” Margaret Buchanan added, “We won’t ascertain if this narrative is truly dystopian until future generations reflect on it amidst current climatic challenges.”
Conversely, Niall Leighton argued that the real-world experiences of many people mirror the novel’s depiction of dystopia. “It’s a semantic debate: can the essence of living in a dystopian nightmare be recognized as living in a dystopia?” he wrote. He emphasized that for him, Winton’s work unmistakably inhabits that genre.
Niall further posited the provocative idea: Can envisioning a dystopian future deter its actualization? “I agree with Tim Winton that we need to confront our reality instead of relating through dystopian narratives. What we truly require are stories that inspire us to build better, inclusive worlds,” he stated. This encourages reflection for many of us, myself included.
Meanwhile, Gosia raised concerns about the plausibility of Winton’s narrative choices, questioning whether killing descendants of the fossil fuel elite was a logical response to climate crises. She lamented that such actions seemed futile against the continuous decline of our environment.
As for the novel’s conclusion, I personally cherished the nuances of hope and ambiguous endings, which resonate with me. Samantha de Vaux shared her perspective, acknowledging that while a more positive outcome could have been possible, she respects the author’s narrative course. “This complex book and its conclusion challenged me profoundly,” she remarked.
As we conclude our discussion of Winton’s profound works, we pivot to our March selections—whether dystopian or not. Up next, I’ll delve into Daisy Fancourt’s insightful non-fiction, Art Cure: The Science of How Art Changes Our Health. As a Professor of Psychobiology and Epidemiology at University College London, she explores how art can elevate our mental and physical well-being, identifying it as the ‘forgotten fifth pillar of health’ alongside diet, sleep, and exercise. A captivating excerpt detailing how an art class transformed someone’s recovery post-stroke awaits readers. Join us in the New Scientist Book Club by signing up or connecting on our Facebook group here.
Climate change is potentially enhancing frogs’ mating rituals with a new study revealing fascinating insights.
Researchers from the University of California, Davis discovered that temperature significantly influences the quality of male frogs’ mating calls, with warmer weather leading to more alluring calls.
Typically, male frogs’ calls become less vibrant in early spring. However, as temperatures rise, their calls speed up, catching the attention of female frogs in search of a mate.
“Frog calls are greatly influenced by the environment’s temperature,” notes lead author Julian Pecny, a former graduate student in the Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology at UC Davis. Currently, she serves as the director of conservation science at the North Carolina Amphibian and Reptile Conservancy.
“As the pond warms, the male frog’s call shifts from a slow, dull sound to a quicker, almost urgent tone. Even humans can hear this change, and female frogs are attuned to it as well.”
The results of this study are published in Frontiers of Ecology and Environment, based on research conducted at Quail Ridge Ecological Reserve and Lassen Field Station, part of the UC Conservancy.
Pecny employed a microphone positioned at the edge of a pond to record the love songs of Sierran tree frogs, analyzing them against variations in water temperature.
Photo credit: Brian Todd/UC Davis. As temperatures rise, male Sierran tree frogs enhance their mating calls to signal to females that conditions for breeding are ideal.
Importantly, the researchers found that female frogs are not merely choosing the most attractive male singers; they are using call quality to assess whether environmental conditions are suitable for breeding.
“This could be a method for females to track changes in seasonality over time,” says Pekny. “As the pond gets warmer, the males’ enticing calls become faster.”
This phenomenon could have significant ramifications as our climate continues to warm. With 41 percent of amphibians at risk of extinction, understanding frogs’ breeding timing and its fluctuations is vital for conservation efforts.
Typically, male frogs arrive at the pond before females, starting their calls to compete for attention. However, females delay until conditions are right for their eggs to thrive, gathering essential information from the quality of the males’ calls.
“It’s crucial for males to reach the pond before their competitors,” stated co-author Brian Todd, a professor in the Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology at UC Davis. “Conversely, females should arrive only when it’s the right time for egg laying.”
This groundbreaking discovery could reshape our understanding of animal reactions to climate change and may also impact insect species that make courtship calls during this season.
Interestingly, it’s not only frogs that can hear these mating calls; humans can, too.
“If you listen carefully over several weeks, you might notice the difference,” Pekny suggests. “Imagine how female frogs identify male calls over the course of the season.”
On Thursday, President Donald Trump declared that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revoking a critical certification that has been in effect for almost 20 years, aimed at reducing heat-trapping pollution from vehicles, refineries, and factories.
This significant reversal of the so-called endangered finding could drastically alter U.S. policies designed to combat climate change.
The 2009 EPA study indicated that global warming, driven by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, threatens the health and welfare of both present and future generations.
“We are officially ending the so-called endangered study, a catastrophic Obama-era policy,” President Trump stated during a press conference. “There was no factual or legal basis for this decision. Fossil fuels, in fact, have saved millions of lives and lifted billions out of poverty globally.”
Prominent environmental organizations are challenging the government’s revocation of the endangered status designation and are gearing up for legal action.
Traffic moves along a road near Royal Dutch Shell and Valero Energy’s Norco refinery during a power outage caused by Hurricane Ida in LaPlace, Louisiana, in August 2021. Luke Charette/Bloomberg from Getty Images File
The findings substantiated the EPA’s capabilities in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and power plants while mandating companies to report their emissions, advocating for climate change action consistent with the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling affirmed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, highlighting the severe and well-recognized harms linked to climate change, and led to the 2009 endangered finding.
According to the White House and EPA, this reversal marks “the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.”
This initiative is one of the Trump administration’s most significant efforts to unwind climate action, coinciding with the U.S. retreat from the 2015 Paris Agreement and its expected withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
President Trump has previously labeled climate change a “swindle” and cut nearly $8 billion in funding for renewable energy projects in October, though a court later found some cancelations illegal. Recently, the Department of Energy announced a $175 million investment to extend the lifespan of six coal-fired power plants, highlighting continued support for coal.
According to the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Agency, last year was the third warmest on record, and the past 11 years have been the hottest ever documented.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin engages with residents and business owners impacted by the Palisades fire in Los Angeles on February 4. Mario Tama/Getty Images
President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin also announced the elimination of all greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles.
“We are reversing the unreasonable hazard findings and abolishing unnecessary emissions standards imposed on vehicle models and engines from 2012 to 2027 and beyond,” President Trump affirmed.
The EPA intends to continue regulating pollutants from tailpipe emissions that affect air quality, including carbon monoxide, lead, and ozone.
Former President Obama emphasized that failing to maintain these standards could make Americans “less safe, less healthy, and hinder efforts against climate change,” benefitting only the fossil fuel industry.
The U.S. Climate Alliance, headed by California Governor Gavin Newsom and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, criticized the repeal for being “illegal, dismissive of fundamental science, and disconnecting from reality.”
Multiple organizations, including the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association, have pledged to sue in response to this unlawful repeal.
“As an organization dedicated to public health, we reject this unwarranted repeal,” they declared in a statement.
Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, remarked that the repeal is “a windfall for the fossil fuel sector” and that they are prepared for a legal fight.
“We will oppose this action because it lacks scientific support, is economically detrimental, and is illegal. We’ll see the government in court,” he stated.
This legal struggle could extend for years, as the government attempts to justify the repeals in the face of robust scientific evidence regarding climate change’s dangers.
Michael Gerrard, founder of Columbia University’s Sabin Center on Climate Change Law, noted that the future of this repeal could hinge on the Supreme Court, which may need to overturn 16 years of established precedent.
“The 2007 ruling was a 5-4 decision; all five justices in the majority are no longer in office. Of the dissenting justices, three are still serving,” Gerrard explained. “Typically, courts require a comprehensive explanation and supporting documentation when an agency makes such significant changes.”
Megan Greenfield, a partner at Jenner & Block who oversaw EPA rulemaking during the Biden administration, stated that the current administration may face challenges in court due to existing legal precedents and compelling scientific evidence highlighting climate change’s effects. She emphasized that the administration must demonstrate adherence to proper procedures when issuing regulations.
“Regulatory processes usually require around three years, but this rule was finalized in about a year,” she mentioned. “Only after rigorous compliance can more complex legal issues be addressed.”
As of 4 p.m. ET Thursday, the EPA had yet to publish the final text of the rule and did not respond to inquiries regarding its expected release.
The agency contended that a draft proposal released in August overstated the risks of heat waves, predicted accelerated global warming, and underestimated the advantages of increased carbon emissions, like enhanced plant growth. Most independent scientific organizations have dismissed these claims.
“EPA’s 2009 Endangered Findings stem from extensive research,” stated the American Geophysical Union on Thursday. “To override such a landmark scientific and legal determination is a denial of conclusive science, an ignorance of current struggles, and a direct threat to our collective future.”
The administration has also signaled plans to revisit other regulations reliant on endangered findings, including methane regulations, a potent greenhouse gas.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum proclaimed on FOX Business that the findings’ reversal would breathe new life into the coal industry.
“CO₂” [carbon dioxide] “was never a pollutant; this whole situation is an opportunity to rejuvenate clean, beautiful American coal,” he stated.
The Impact of Climate Change: Increased Frequency of Disasters
Source: Associated Press/Alamy
Over a decade post the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, it appears we remain stagnant in climate action efforts. While the rise of electric vehicles and the dominance of renewable energy over coal present positive trends, fossil fuel companies are still expanding and global emissions exceed 41 gigatonnes of CO2 annually.
At the Paris Conference, a hopeful vision emerged: nations committed to restricting the increase in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Despite this ambition, little has changed in a decade. The framework to determine when we exceed this temperature threshold may not be confirmed until 2040, long after it’s already transpired.
The crucial 1.5°C threshold has become synonymous with dangerous climate change, significantly influencing global climate policy. Warnings about exceeding this limit’s risks have not translated into the aggressive emissions reductions that science necessitates.
But why the inaction? The core issue is the misconception that 1.5°C is a target to aim for instead of a limit we must prevent crossing. In 2015, global average temperatures had only risen by 1°C, suggesting ample time to react. This false sense of security allowed governments and fossil fuel industries to argue for a status quo while still contributing 37 gigatonnes of CO2 to our atmosphere.
As we inch closer to the 1.5 degrees Celsius mark, debates continue about alternative indicators to measure our progress. Options like the rate of renewable energy adoption have been proposed, but the most pressing indicator remains the global temperature rise — a crucial standard that reflects climate system responses and allows for comparisons to historical episodes of rapid warming.
Some advocate for considering 1.6°C or 1.7°C as new thresholds, as every fraction of a degree is critical. However, this approach is flawed; it risks becoming another target rather than a limit, and given the current rate of temperature increase (0.27°C per decade), we might surpass these figures as soon as the mid-2030s. Swift action on emissions is unlikely to keep us below these revised limits.
The reality is that premature restrictions could worsen the scenario, linking policy to restrictive measures that could lead to further failures. Instead, we should focus on impactful methods for tracking the rise in average global temperatures, providing clear visibility. First, we need a reliable methodology that allows us to track this figure in real-time without a decade-long wait. Career scientist Richard Betts and his colleagues from the Met Office have already developed an effective approach.
Next, we require a visual representation that resonates with the public. Imagine a global thermometer that updates annually, akin to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock. Such a periodic event could highlight the gradual increase in global temperatures, emphasizing crossing or approaching critical thresholds, thereby communicating the urgent need for action against escalating climate threats.
Bill McGuire serves as an Emeritus Professor of Geophysics and Climate Hazards at University College London. His forthcoming book, The Fate of the World: The History and Future of the Climate Crisis, will be published by HarperNorth in May.
For decades, discussions surrounding coastal risk have focused primarily on climate change and sea level rise. However, a significant new global study reveals an even more urgent threat: land subsidence, affecting hundreds of millions of people living in delta regions, including urban hubs like New Orleans and Bangkok.
In various locations around the world, land is sinking at rates that often surpass the rising sea levels.
Utilizing satellite radar technology to monitor minute changes in the Earth’s surface, researchers have discovered that over half of the world’s deltas—low-lying areas where major rivers converge with the ocean—are currently sinking. This gradual subsidence, in conjunction with sea level rise, poses the most significant flood risk in many densely populated delta regions on Earth.
“This is truly a declaration of war,” stated Professor Robert Nicholls, co-author of the study and coastal scientist at the University of Southampton. The findings were reported in BBC Science Focus. “Until now, no one had taken a global perspective on delta subsidence. This study highlights the breadth of the issue and underscores the urgency of addressing it.”
The survey results can be found in the journal Nature.
Subsidence rates in river deltas, displayed as colored circles. The size of each circle reflects the area of the delta sinking faster than sea level rise, represented as a color gradient across the delta’s basin. Photo credit: Ohenhen et al. (2026)
Global Problems Hidden in Plain Sight
Delta regions comprise only 1% of the Earth’s land area but are home to approximately 350 to 500 million people, including some of the world’s most significant cities and productive agricultural zones. These areas serve as economic powerhouses, environmental hotspots, and essential food sources, yet they are inherently fragile.
Deltas are formed by loose, water-saturated sediments deposited over millennia. In their natural state, these sediments compact under their own weight and gradually sink.
Historically, natural subsidence was balanced by periodic flooding that replenished the land with fresh sediment, but modern interventions have disrupted this equilibrium.
The recent study analyzed satellite measurements across 40 major delta regions from 2014 to 2023, creating the first high-resolution global image detailing land elevation changes.
The findings were alarming: currently, at least 35% of delta regions have subsided, with over half of the land surface subsiding in most deltas.
In 18 of the 40 river deltas examined, land is sinking faster than local sea level rise, revealing hotspots where subsidence dominates over regional and global sea level increases.
A similar pattern is evident across continents—Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas—where relative sea levels rise due to both ocean expansion and land subsidence.
“From a risk perspective, it doesn’t matter if sea levels rise or land sinks,” Nichols explained. “The ultimate effect is the same, but the responses to those threats may differ.”
The Ciliund Delta in Indonesia is home to Jakarta, inhabited by over 40 million people, and is sinking at an average rate of 5.6 mm annually. Photo credit: Getty
What is Causing the Sinking?
The study identified three primary causes of anthropogenic land subsidence: groundwater extraction, reduced sediment supply, and urban expansion. Among these, groundwater pumping is the most significant predictor.
When groundwater is extracted, the soft surrounding sediments collapse and compact, a process that is nearly irreversible. Once the sediment is compacted, it will not return, even if water levels recover.
In 10 out of the 40 delta regions studied, groundwater depletion was the main factor driving land subsidence. Additionally, reduced river sediment caused by damming and flood defenses, combined with the weight of growing cities built on soft soils, contribute to this crisis.
As a result, what was once a slow geological phenomenon has transformed into an urgent environmental crisis.
Read More:
US Case: Mississippi Delta
The Mississippi River Delta in New Orleans and Louisiana exemplifies this issue in the United States.
The analysis confirms widespread subsidence across the delta, with over 90% of the region experiencing subsidence at an average rate of 3.3 mm per year. Some localized areas even sink much faster.
While this rate may seem minimal, it accumulates significantly over decades, especially alongside the threats posed by rising sea levels and hurricanes.
The Mississippi Delta has lost thousands of square kilometers of coastal wetlands over the last century, resulting in catastrophic damage. An area the size of a soccer field is lost to open water every 100 minutes.
The Mississippi Delta experiences an average subsidence of 3.3 mm per year, with some hotspots sinking over 10 times faster. Photo credit: NASA Earth Observatory
The lack of fresh sediment is a critical issue. Levees and dams prevent flooding and the natural deposition of new sediments that help rebuild the land. Additionally, drainage systems, oil and gas extraction, and decades of groundwater pumping exert further stress on fragile soils.
While some delta areas display resilience, one proposed solution is relocating populations away from these vulnerable regions. For instance, New Orleans has seen a steady population decline since the 1960s.
“In the United States, people tend to accept the idea of relocation,” Nichols noted, emphasizing that societal mobility and favorable land-use policies make this transition more politically feasible than in parts of Europe and Asia, where long-term protective measures are generally favored.
Warning to Major Cities
While North America grapples with these challenges, the most extreme subsidence rates can be found in parts of South and Southeast Asia, where population density is high and dependence on groundwater for agriculture, industry, and drinking water prevails.
Regions such as the Mekong River (Vietnam), Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers (Bangladesh and India), Chao Phraya River (Thailand), and Yellow River (China) are sinking faster than current global sea level rise in some areas by over a centimeter per year.
Mega-cities like Bangkok, Dhaka, Shanghai, and parts of Jakarta are built on these subsiding foundations.
The good news is that, unlike global sea level rise—which unfolds over centuries—human-induced land subsidence can respond swiftly to policy changes. A notable success story is Tokyo.
Due to strict groundwater extraction regulations, Tokyo has significantly reduced subsidence rates. Photo credit: Getty
In the mid-20th century, unchecked groundwater extraction caused parts of Tokyo to sink more than 4 meters. However, rigorous regulations on groundwater use and investments in alternative water sources resulted in a swift decrease in subsidence rates.
“Authorities have enacted legislation to ensure sufficient alternative water supplies and eliminate groundwater extraction,” Nichols remarked. “And almost overnight, this led to stabilization.”
Additional solutions include managed flooding in agricultural areas to replenish soil sediments. “Sediment is often deemed a pollutant,” Nichols points out. However, when rivers overflow, they deposit valuable materials that built the delta, a process sometimes referred to as “brown gold.”
Urban areas can be fortified with effective engineering solutions such as sea walls, levees, and storm surge barriers. “Addressing subsidence complements efforts to adapt to sea level rise and reduces vulnerabilities,” Nichols added, as reported here.
Shifting Attitudes Towards Coastal Risk
The study’s authors emphasize that land subsidence has been dangerously overlooked in global climate risk strategies, largely viewed as a local rather than a global issue.
However, local does not equate to minor. Even under severe climate scenarios, land subsidence is expected to remain the primary driver of relative sea level rise in numerous delta regions for decades to come.
Financial and institutional barriers often hinder large-scale interventions in many areas, but deferring action only exacerbates the costs and challenges of future adaptations.
Once land subsides, initiating new urban developments is not feasible, leaving communities to face tough decisions about relocation.
As Nichols succinctly states, “The first crucial step is to acknowledge that a problem exists.”
Solar geoengineering: A solution to save ice sheets with potential risks
Credit: Martin Zwick/REDA/Universal Images Group (via Getty Images)
Research indicates that an abrupt halt to solar geoengineering may lead to a “termination shock,” causing a rapid temperature rise that could make the initiative more expensive than continuing without intervention.
With greenhouse gas emissions on the rise, there’s increasing attention on solar radiation management (SRM), which cools the planet by dispersing sulfur dioxide aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight.
However, sustained solar geoengineering is crucial for centuries; otherwise, the hidden warming could quickly reemerge. This rebound, referred to as termination shock, leaves little time for adaptation and could catalyze critical climate events such as ice sheet collapses.
According to Francisco Estrada, researchers from the National Autonomous University of Mexico assessed the risk of inaction on climate change compared to solar geoengineering approaches.
Projections suggest that if emissions aren’t curtailed, temperatures may soar by an average of 4.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100, leading to approximately $868 billion in economic damages. In contrast, a hypothetical stratospheric aerosol injection program initiated in 2020 could limit warming to around 2.8°C, potentially reducing these costs by half.
Nevertheless, if the aerosol program ends abruptly in 2030, resulting in a temperature rebound of 0.6 degrees Celsius over eight years, economic damages could surpass $1 trillion by century’s end. While estimations vary, Estrada states, “The principle remains consistent: the termination shock will be significantly worse than inaction.”
Estrada’s research innovatively gauges damage not only by global warming levels but also by the speed at which temperatures rise, according to Gernot Wagner from Columbia University.
Wagner warns that solar geoengineering may be riskier than it appears. “This highlights a critical concern,” he notes.
Make Sunsets, a Silicon Valley startup, has already launched over 200 sulfur dioxide-filled balloons into the stratosphere and offers emission offsets for sale. A recent launch in Mexico prompted governmental threats to ban geoengineering activities.
Israel’s Stardust Co., Ltd. has secured $75 million in funding and is lobbying the U.S. government to explore solar geoengineering options. A recent survey revealed that two-thirds of scientists anticipate large-scale SRM could occur this century, as reported by New Scientist.
According to studies, it would take at least 100 aircraft to cool the Earth by 1°C through aerosol injection, releasing millions of tons of sulfur dioxide annually, unimpeded by geopolitical conflicts or unforeseen events.
Presently, major nations like the United States are undermining global climate cooperation, but researchers highlight that such collaboration is essential to prevent termination shock and potentially realize the benefits of SRM.
Analysis of varying parameters suggests that aerosol injections could mitigate climate damage only if the annual probability of cessation is extremely low. In scenarios allowing for a gradual stop over 15 years, SRM might be viable.
If countries successfully reduce emissions, only minimal geoengineering cooling may be necessary, rendering aerosol injection beneficial with a maximum outage probability of 10%. This indicates a potential 99.9% chance of failure over a century, but manageable temperature recovery remains plausible in low emissions scenarios.
This need for international cooperation reveals what Estrada describes as the “governance paradox” of solar geoengineering: “We must ensure extremely low failure rates and possess effective governance to mitigate adverse outcomes.” However, he adds, “If we effectively reduce greenhouse gases, the need for SRM diminishes.”
These findings challenge the notion that solar geoengineering might lead to irresponsible development, as some have suggested, according to Chad Baum from Aarhus University. Funding for this new research was provided by the Degrees Initiative, aimed at supporting geoengineering studies in vulnerable low-income nations.
Baum stated, “We intend to complete all stages of this study, incorporating feedback from impacted communities.”
Despite this, Wagner emphasizes the imperative for further exploration into geoengineering’s trade-offs given the rise in emissions and their consequences: “We are approaching a critical juncture.”
During the first decade of the 21st century, scientists and policymakers emphasized a 2°C cap as the highest “safe” limit for global warming above pre-industrial levels. Recent research suggests that this threshold might still be too high. Rising sea levels pose a significant risk to low-lying islands, prompting scientists to explore the advantages of capping temperature rise at approximately 1.5°C for safeguarding vulnerable regions.
In light of this evidence, the United Nations negotiating bloc, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), advocated for a global commitment to restrict warming to 1.5°C, emphasizing that allowing a 2°C increase would have devastating effects on many small island developing nations.
James Fletcher, the former UN negotiator for the AOSIS bloc at the 2015 UN COP climate change summit in Paris, remarked on the challenges faced in convincing other nations to adopt this stricter global objective. At one summit, he recounted a low-income country’s representative confronting him, expressing their vehement opposition to the idea of even a 1.5°C increase.
After intense discussions, bolstered by support from the European Union and the tacit backing of the United States, as well as intervention from Pope Francis, the 1.5°C target was included in the impactful 2015 Paris Agreement. However, climate scientists commenced their work without a formal evaluation of the implications of this warming level.
In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report confirmed that limiting warming to 1.5°C would provide substantial benefits. The report also advocated for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 along a 1.5°C pathway.
These dual objectives quickly became rallying points for nations and businesses worldwide, persuading countries like the UK to enhance their national climate commitments to meet these stringently set goals.
Researchers at the University of Leeds, including Piers Foster, attribute the influence of the 1.5°C target as a catalyst driving nations to adhere to significantly tougher climate goals than previously envisioned. “It fostered a sense of urgency,” he remarks.
Despite this momentum, global temperatures continue to rise, and current efforts to curb emissions are insufficient to fulfill the 1.5°C commitment. Scientific assessments predict the world may exceed this warming threshold within a mere few years.
Nevertheless, 1.5°C remains a crucial benchmark for tracking progress in global emissions reductions. Public and policymakers are more alert than ever to the implications of rising temperatures. An overshoot beyond 1.5°C is widely regarded as a perilous scenario, rendering the prior notion of 2°C as a “safe” threshold increasingly outdated.
Later that year, climatologist Peter Stott from the British Met Office found himself in Italy during one of Europe’s most severe heatwaves. Instead of enjoying a vacation, he faced temperatures exceeding 40 degrees Celsius, a shocking experience for him.
Both Allen and Stott were intent on understanding climate change’s role in extreme weather events. Stott utilized existing climate models to simulate two scenarios of the 2003 heatwave: one reflecting the climate of that year and another devoid of human-induced warming.
They ran extensive model simulations and concluded that in their landmark 2004 paper in Nature, human activities have more than doubled the likelihood of experiencing a heatwave similar to that of 2003.
This groundbreaking work marked the inception of a new climate science field, which began to identify human influences on extreme weather events. Soon analyses emerged for diverse phenomena, from heatwaves to severe droughts and storms.
However, a significant challenge remained—post-event analyses often took months or years to determine the influence of climate change.
To address this, researchers, including Friederike Otto from Imperial College London, founded World Weather Attribution in 2014. This initiative facilitates swift analysis of extreme weather events, quantifying the probable impacts of climate change, with results frequently released within days.
This has dramatically altered reporting on such events globally, enabling news outlets to directly attribute deadly weather phenomena to climate change and emphasizing the real-world consequences of rising emissions.
As Otto stated, “When we began this work a decade ago, scientists and journalists maintained that individual weather events could not be blamed on climate change. That perspective has shifted immensely.”
This advancement also supports climate change litigation, with causal investigations providing evidence in numerous lawsuits against polluters worldwide. In 2022, the United Nations announced a new International Loss and Damage Fund, paving the way for climate change compensation.
In 2003, Allen queried: “Could litigation for climate change be feasible?” Thanks to developments in attribution science, the answer is now a definitive “yes.”
Shorebirds serve as important indicators of coastal and wetland ecosystems, and their widespread distribution highlights their ecological significance. Although wading shorebirds are infrequently found in the fossil record, a remarkable collection of shorebird fossils has emerged from Pleistocene deposits at the Naracoorte Caves World Heritage Site in South Australia. Recent studies on these fossils provide insights into the evolution of wetland environments, revealing that flourishing habitats vanished with climate shifts as far back as 60,000 years ago. The research links a drying phase around 17,000 years ago to the decline of many of the nine or more shorebird species discovered in one of the Naracoorte Caves.
Red knot (Calidris canutus), near Grinet, Brittany, France. Image credit: Stephan Sprinz / CC BY 4.0.
“Shorebirds are rare in the fossil record, making the discovery of numerous shorebird fossils in Blanche Cave surprising,” stated PhD candidate Karl Lenser from Flinders University.
“This finding suggests that wetlands and tidal flats—vital feeding grounds for plovers, sandpipers, and other shorebirds—were more prevalent during the last Ice Age.”
Currently, climate change and habitat loss are contributing to the decline of Australia’s shorebird populations.
Gaining insights into how these species adapted to historical climate changes may be essential for forecasting their future.
Lenser and his team were particularly intrigued by the remains of the Plains Wanderer, an endangered bird found mostly in Victoria and New South Wales, which was among the most common fossils identified in this study.
Out of approximately 300 examined bones, more than half were identified as those of Plains Wanderers.
“Today’s Plains Wanderers are selective about their habitats; however, other fossils from Naracoorte indicate that the area once featured wooded environments—starkly different from the treeless grassland they inhabit today,” Lenser explained.
Naracoorte represents the only fossil site in Australia with such a substantial population of Plains Wanderers, indicating a significant decline in their numbers over the last 14,000 years due to habitat restriction.
Dr. Trevor Worthy from Flinders University highlighted the uniqueness of this sandpiper fossil sample, noting its representation of migratory species that travel from the Northern Hemisphere to spend winters in Australia.
“This includes three species from the Calidris genus and the Latham Sandpiper (Galinago hardwickii),” he added.
“Fossil assemblages also include blue-bellied plovers that migrate from Australia to New Zealand for breeding.”
“Fossil evidence shows that two young birds flew approximately 2,000 km from New Zealand and were captured by owls near Blanche Cave in Naracoorte,” Dr. Worthy explained.
“There remains much to uncover about Australia’s bird species from the last Ice Age, and fossils from sites like Naracoorte are crucial for filling in these knowledge gaps,” Lenser noted.
“Naracoorte Caves holds a 500,000-year record of biodiversity in Southeast South Australia,” stated Dr. Liz Reid from the University of Adelaide.
“As this study clearly demonstrates, caves offer a glimpse into pre-European landscapes, providing valuable information for the conservation of endangered species today.”
Visitors to Naracoorte Caves can explore the excavation site and delve into the science behind South Australia’s only World Heritage Site.
Findings have been published in the online journal Old Trogia Electronica about the study.
_____
Karl M. Lenser et al. 2026. Fossil shorebirds (order: Charadriidae) revealing a Pleistocene wetland trend at Naracoorte Caves, South Australia. Old Trogia Electronica 29 (1): a2; doi: 10.26879/1608
A revealing new study challenges traditional beliefs by showing that mid-ocean ridges and continental rifts, rather than volcanic eruptions, significantly influence atmospheric carbon fluctuations and long-term climate change in Earth’s geological history.
Cryogenic Earth. Image credit: NASA.
Over the past 540 million years, Earth’s climate has gone through dramatic shifts, alternating between icy icehouse conditions and warm greenhouse phases.
Icehouse conditions prevailed during key geological periods, including the Late Ordovician, Late Paleozoic, and Cenozoic eras.
Notably, warmer periods were associated with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, while declines in greenhouse gases led to global cooling and extensive glaciation.
Research conducted by Ben Mather and a team at the University of Melbourne reconstructed carbon movements between volcanoes, oceans, and the deep Earth over the past 540 million years.
“Our findings challenge the long-accepted view that volcanic chains formed by tectonic plate collisions are the primary natural source of Earth’s atmospheric carbon,” Dr. Mather stated.
“Instead, it appears that carbon emissions from deep-sea crevices and mid-ocean ridges, driven by tectonic movements, have been crucial in shaping the transitions between icehouse and greenhouse climates throughout most of Earth’s history.”
“For example, we discovered that carbon released from volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire only emerged as a significant carbon source in the last 100 million years, prompting us to reevaluate current scientific understanding.”
This study presents the first robust long-term evidence indicating that Earth’s climate change is primarily driven by carbon released at divergent plate boundaries rather than convergent ones.
“This insight not only reshapes our understanding of past climates but will also enhance future climate models,” Dr. Mather noted.
By integrating global plate tectonics reconstructions with carbon cycle models, the research team traced the storage, release, and recycling of carbon as continents shift.
Professor Dietmar Müller from the University of Sydney remarked, “Our findings illustrate how variations in carbon release from plate spreading influenced long-term climate shifts, clarifying historical climate changes, such as the late Paleozoic ice ages, the warm Mesozoic greenhouse world, and the rise of present-day Cenozoic icehouses.”
This research holds vital implications for understanding the ongoing climate crisis.
“This study contributes to the growing body of evidence that atmospheric carbon levels are a significant factor driving major climate shifts,” Dr. Mather emphasized.
“Comprehending how Earth managed its climate historically underscores the extraordinary pace of current climate change.”
“Human activities are releasing carbon at a staggering rate, far surpassing any natural geological processes previously recorded.”
“The climate balance is tipping alarmingly fast.”
For more on this groundbreaking research, you can view the findings published in the journal Communication Earth and Environment.
_____
B.R. Mather et al. 2026. Carbon emissions along divergent plate boundaries influence climate shifts between icehouses and greenhouses. Communication Earth and Environment 7, 48; doi: 10.1038/s43247-025-03097-0
The impact of climate change is accelerating faster than anticipated, with governments and businesses continuing to underestimate associated risks. These risks could lead to economic losses reaching trillions of dollars by 2050.
According to reports from climate scientists and financial experts, the world might be significantly underestimating the speed of global warming, facing the prospect of “planetary bankruptcy.” This means climate change could cause extensive damage to both the environment and economic growth.
Decision-makers often concentrate on intermediate climate impact estimates. However, with phenomena such as extreme precipitation occurring sooner than projected, preparations for worst-case scenarios are necessary, as indicated in the report.
“Urgent global cooperation on a solvency plan is essential,” says David King, former chief climate adviser to the UK government, who contributed to the report. “We’re experiencing an acceleration in temperature rise. While the future is uncertain, it’s reasonable to assume that this trend won’t reverse.”
The initial step towards such a plan could involve reevaluating the assumption that the global economy will continue to grow indefinitely. Sandy Trust, a British investment manager at Baillie Gifford, remarked that according to the Network for Greening the Financial System, the world could incur trillions in annual losses by 2050 due to climate impacts. However, the network believes that a recession is unlikely, as global economic growth might outpace these losses.
“This is akin to Titanic risk modeling, predicting a smooth journey from the deck of the Titanic in April 1912,” Trust adds. “Such assumptions overlook fundamental principles of risk management—most notably, the importance of planning for worst-case scenarios.”
Preparation for the worst is critical, according to a report from the European Union’s Copernicus climate change agency. The study highlighted that 2025 was the third warmest year on record, with average temperatures rising 1.47 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The temperatures in 2024 were even higher, leading to a three-year average exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius for the first time.
This growth represents a step closer to the 20-30 year average needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rises to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Ten years since the agreement was signed, projections indicated that the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold would be reached by 2045. However, if current trends persist, according to Copernicus’ data, we could breach this critical limit by 2030.
Scientists indicate that the rate of global warming is speeding up, largely due to declining air pollution levels, including sulfur emissions from coal-fired power plants and shipping. With clearer skies, more sunlight reaches the Earth, leading to an apparent increase of about 0.5 degrees Celsius.
However, the primary factor behind breaching the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold sooner than predicted is the relentless rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Samantha Burgess from Copernicus emphasizes that fossil fuel emissions are expected to hit record levels in 2025.
“Emissions are not decreasing as quickly as anticipated,” Burgess comments.
With each increment of warming, extreme weather events become increasingly frequent and severe. The January 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles may potentially mark the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history, exacerbated by the climate crisis which will likely double their frequency and amplify their severity by 25 times. Hurricane Melissa, the most powerful storm to make landfall in the Atlantic, had wind speeds at least 10 miles per hour higher than would normally be expected without climate change.
“This figure represents a global average; thus, 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming means that heatwaves can be 3 to 4 degrees, or even 10 degrees hotter than usual,” Burgess explains. “The younger generation will face even more extreme heat and climate risks than we did.”
The polar regions are warming at a pace faster than others, mainly due to feedback mechanisms, such as the loss of reflective snow and ice. In fact, last year witnessed record warmth in Antarctica, attributed to an unusual stratospheric heating event. The extent of sea ice across the Arctic and Antarctic has now reached unprecedented lows.
On a positive note, global emissions are showing a leveling-off trend, specifically in China, where emissions have stabilized.
“With CO2 emissions plateauing, we anticipate continued warming, but not at an accelerated rate,” states Timothy Osborne of the University of East Anglia, UK.
Addressing methane leaks from infrastructures like gas pipelines and aging coal mines could provide a short-term solution, King suggests. Reducing methane emissions by 30% over the next decade could mitigate global warming by at least 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2050.
“We must also tackle other slow-moving issues, which are vital elements of our path forward,” King asserts. “An overshoot beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius presents significant challenges for humanity.”
Exploring Melaleuca Wetland Forests in New South Wales, Australia
Image Credit: Luke Jeffrey / Southern Cross University
The bark of a single tree can host trillions of bacteria, which may have a crucial yet underappreciated role in regulating greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
Globally, the total surface area of tree bark is estimated to be around 143 million square kilometers, roughly equivalent to the Earth’s total land area. This extensive area represents a vast microbial environment known as the ashosphere, yet the microorganisms residing there have largely been overlooked by researchers. Learn more.
“It may seem obvious, but we’ve historically ignored tree bark,” states Bob Leung, a researcher from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. “I had never considered that microbes existed in tree bark, but it makes perfect sense. Bacteria thrive everywhere, so it’s reasonable to expect them in the bark as well.”
Leung and his team initiated their research on a common wetland species known as paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia). Their findings revealed that over 6 trillion bacteria inhabit every square meter of tree bark, a density comparable to that found in soil.
Genetic testing of 114 bacterial species indicated that most belong to three primary bacterial families: Acidobacteriaceae, Mycobacteriaceae, and Acetobacteriaceae; intriguing as they remain entirely unclassified by science.
A fascinating characteristic of these microorganisms is their ability to metabolize hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane for energy. While hydrogen (H2) itself isn’t a greenhouse gas, it can enhance the warming effect of the atmosphere by reacting with other gases.
Researchers extended their study to include seven additional Australian tree species from diverse habitats, such as Casuarina, rubber trees, and banksias, and assessed their bark’s ability to absorb or emit greenhouse gases both in natural settings and laboratory experiments.
Under aerobic conditions, where oxygen is present, all bark types were found to consume hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane. However, when the trees were submerged in water—typical in wetland areas—the microbes adapted by producing these same gases.
Melaleuca quinquenervia trees in an Australian forest”
data-credit=”Luke Jeffrey / Southern Cross University”/>
The Canopy of Melaleuca quinquenervia
Image Credit: Luke Jeffrey / Southern Cross University
According to researchers, the collective amount of hydrogen absorbed by bark microorganisms worldwide is estimated to be between 600 million and 1.6 billion kilograms annually, which represents about 2% of the total hydrogen removed from the atmosphere.
This groundbreaking study marks the first effort to evaluate the role of tree bark in atmospheric hydrogen cycling, notes Luke Jeffrey at Southern Cross University in Lismore, Australia.
“Recognizing the hidden contributions of trees, beyond their role in carbon dioxide absorption, is crucial,” emphasizes Jeffrey. “Trees actively engage with other greenhouse gases, which is significant as H2 interacts with atmospheric methane and could help mitigate the increasing methane dilemma.”
However, the global landscape remains uncertain since the team evaluated only eight tree species from eastern Australia. “Significant research is needed across diverse forest types, tree varieties, microbial communities, and environmental conditions,” says Jeffrey.
Brett Somerelle of the Sydney Botanic Gardens asserts that this research underscores the gaps in our understanding of microbial diversity, composition, and functionality within tree bark ecosystems. “It will be fascinating to observe how these factors change across a broader spectrum of tree species, particularly in arid environments like savannahs and woodlands,” notes Summerell.
Understanding the relationships between fungi and bacteria in tree bark is equally critical, he adds.
President Donald Trump’s controversial choice to withdraw the United States from key United Nations-affiliated organizations means the country risks losing its significant role in crucial global climate change discussions.
In a sweeping executive order issued on Wednesday, President Trump halted U.S. funding for 66 international bodies, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—an agreement the U.S. joined in 1992—and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which releases the most authoritative climate reports globally.
According to a post by the White House, these organizations are deemed “no longer in the interest of the United States.”
This action underscores the Trump administration’s retreat from climate action, coinciding with escalating global warming effects, which are leading to more frequent and severe weather disasters across the U.S. Events like wildfires, floods, and hurricanes now inflict tens of billions in damages annually. By 2025, it’s projected that 23 extreme weather events will individually cause damages exceeding $1 billion, totaling approximately $115 billion, according to an analysis from Climate Central.
This withdrawal signifies the Trump administration’s rejection of climate diplomacy, further isolating the United States from the global community’s efforts to reduce warming and mitigate the most severe climate change impacts.
In January 2025, the U.S. is set to finalize its exit from the Paris Agreement, a pivotal accord signed in 2016, where 195 participating countries committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), with a maximum increase of 2 degrees Celsius.
The UNFCCC provided the foundational framework for the Paris Agreement, established in 1992 to identify and tackle the main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty was signed by President George Bush after receiving Senate approval with a two-thirds majority vote.
Should the U.S. fully withdraw from the UNFCCC (a process estimated to take a year), it would mark the first instance in history of a country exiting such an agreement. This action could complicate future presidents’ ability to rejoin the Paris Agreement, as reentry requires new Senate approval with a two-thirds majority.
Extracting itself from the UNFCCC would render the United States the only nation without a presence at international climate discussions, as demonstrated by the White House’s decision to forgo an official delegation at the recent COP30 summit in Brazil.
Attendees arrive at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, November 7, 2025. COP 30 Press Office/Anadolu/Getty Images
“Historically, even countries that remained passive at negotiations seldom walked away entirely, as it ensured their input was not disregarded,” stated Christy Ebi, a climate scientist from the University of Washington who has contributed to IPCC reports.
Ebi noted that while past U.S. administrations may have shown limited enthusiasm during discussions, they still tracked proceedings.
“Delegates would listen quietly from the sidelines, but now there’s a complete withdrawal,” she remarked.
The Trump administration has openly criticized the UNFCCC and similar organizations. In a statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to them as “anti-American and ineffective.”
The United States is set to officially exit the Paris Agreement on January 27, marking nearly a year since the administration initiated the withdrawal process.
However, questions persist about whether President Trump can withdraw from the UNFCCC without Congressional approval.
Gene Hsu, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, argues the action is unlawful. “The Constitution clearly outlines the process for joining a treaty with a two-thirds Senate majority but is ambiguous regarding withdrawal,” Suh explained. “We are considering legal action due to the absence of legal precedence for a president unilaterally exiting a Senate-approved treaty.”
The UNFCCC is the global mediator for climate negotiations, organizing the Conference of the Parties (COP) annually to address emissions targets and funding for climate action. The previous year’s conference focused on deforestation challenges and impacts on the Amazon rainforest.
“Hosting such global discussions is akin to managing the Olympics; organizational support is essential,” Ebi said.
Following the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the UNFCCC encountered a budget crisis, prompting Bloomberg Philanthropies, led by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to intervene financially to sustain operations.
In response, UNFCCC Executive Director Simon Steele asserted that Trump’s withdrawal would “diminish America’s security and prosperity.”
“Similar to the previous Paris Agreement, there remains an opportunity for the United States to re-engage in the future,” Steele remarked.
Throughout his inaugural year, President Trump has targeted climate change through substantial budget cuts, labeling it a “swindle.” His administration has worked to undercut key climate reports, such as the National Climate Assessment, while attempting to diminish the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming.
Former Vice President Al Gore, a dedicated climate activist, commented on X that the Trump administration has “neglected the climate crisis from the outset,” putting Americans and global communities at risk while catering to oil industry interests.
“By withdrawing from the IPCC, UNFCCC, and other vital international collaborations, the Trump administration is undermining decades of carefully cultivated diplomacy, eroding climate science, and instilling global distrust,” Gore concluded.
El Niño’s Impact on European Agriculture: Crop Failures and Price Hikes
Public Domain
El Niño, a climate phenomenon affecting the Pacific Ocean region, significantly influenced the economy and climate of Europe, resulting in widespread famine from 1500 to 1800.
During El Niño, the warming of ocean waters in the central and eastern Pacific disrupts trade winds, which leads to altered global rainfall patterns. The cooling phase, known as La Niña, and the oscillation between these two phases is referred to as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
This climatic variation poses severe risks in tropical and subtropical areas, notably in Australia, where it can lead to droughts and wildfires, and in the Americas, where it causes increased rainfall.
However, until recently, the focus on El Niño’s effects on Europe was minimal. Emil Esmaili from Columbia University and his research team studied records from 160 famines in early modern Europe, correlating them with El Niño and La Niña data derived from tree rings.
The findings revealed that over 40% of famines in Central Europe during this era were directly linked to El Niño events.
El Niño typically increases rainfall in the region, which can lead to excess soil moisture, resulting in crop failures. Though it did not directly trigger famine in other European areas, it raised the likelihood of famine occurrences by 24% across all nine regions studied.
To better understand this correlation, Esmaili’s team assessed grain and fish prices, discovering that El Niño significantly drove up food prices throughout Europe for several years.
Researchers, including David Yubilaba from the University of Sydney, indicate that ENSO events can still lead to food insecurity and malnutrition in low-income households in regions such as South Asia, Southeast Asia, Oceania, and parts of Africa.
While El Niño continues to influence the climate in Europe, its impact on food security is expected to be less severe today. “Modern agricultural practices are now more resilient, weather forecasting has greatly improved, and markets have become more consolidated,” says Ubilaba.
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado
Matthew Jonas/MediaNews Group/Boulder Daily Camera (via Getty Images)
The decision by the Trump administration to shut down the premier center for atmospheric research could jeopardize weather forecasting and climate modeling, increasing the risks posed by global warming.
In a statement to USA Today, White House official Russ Vought mentioned that the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) is viewed as a source of “climate change concerns” and will be disbanded. The plan includes the discontinuation of Green New Fraud Research, with “essential capacities” like weather modeling and supercomputing to be relocated.
NCAR’s models provide vital support for reports from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which are crucial for countries in establishing measures to lower carbon emissions and adapt to severe weather.
“Ceasing operations would amplify uncertainty regarding our climate future and hinder our preparation efforts,” asserts Michael Meredith from the British Antarctic Survey. “It’s difficult to view this as anything other than silencing the messenger.”
Established in 1960 to advance atmospheric science, NCAR employs 830 individuals conducting research that spans “from the ocean floor to the core of the sun.” According to its unofficial motto, it manages programs monitoring everything from floods and wildfires to space weather.
NCAR developed the GPS dropsonde, a device equipped with sensors that is deployed into hurricanes, significantly enhancing our understanding of tropical cyclones. This has started a revolution in weather research. The researchers also designed a wind shear warning system for airports, saving numerous lives by preventing crashes.
However, one of its major contributions lies in providing data, modeling, and supercomputing resources to other researching entities. Weather Underground, one of the pioneers in offering localized weather forecasts online in the 1990s, credits its founding on the software and weather data developed by NCAR, according to meteorologist Jeff Masters.
NCAR is responsible for developing and managing weather research and forecasting models that are extensively utilized for daily forecasts and regional climate studies. They will continue to collaborate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to enhance weather modeling aimed at predicting extreme storms.
If this critical work faces disruption, it could lead to a decline in the accuracy of weather apps and TV news forecasts at a time when abnormal weather patterns are increasingly frequent. Masters likens the situation to “halting weapons research and development on the eve of World War II.”
“Without knowledge of impending dangers, more lives will be at stake,” he warns.
NCAR oversees the Community Earth System Model (CESM), the first global climate model developed specifically for universities. CESM facilitates diverse research efforts, from estimating current global carbon emissions to predicting upcoming changes in ocean currents, heat wave frequency, and ice melt.
“This model is arguably the most utilized globally,” states Richard Rood at the University of Michigan.
Twice a year, NCAR organizes user meetings to gather insights on improving the model, which can be operated on a server or downloaded for local modifications. The closure may jeopardize the ongoing maintenance and development of CESM and its bug fixes.
Colin Carlson from Yale University was among numerous scientists who took to social media to highlight NCAR’s importance. He utilizes climate models to predict the requirements for cholera and yellow fever vaccines as the climate evolves and anticipates dengue fever outbreaks in Florida. “We need NCAR to perform our roles effectively,” Carlson emphasized in a recent post.
NCAR also operates a modified C-130 cargo plane and a Gulfstream business jet designed for research purposes, reaching the stratosphere and facilitating the operation of King Air propeller planes that study cloud physics.
From 2009 to 2011, the Gulfstream jet successfully conducted its inaugural comprehensive flight, traversing from the North to South Poles multiple times and reaching altitudes between 150 meters and 9000 meters. Their investigation measured CO2 and other atmospheric gases. They also gathered data on solar corona during the 2017 solar eclipse.
Rood noted that the aircraft assists in monitoring air pollution and calibrating satellite instruments.
The research conducted by NCAR on aerosols is crucial for understanding geoengineering effects, especially proposals aimed at mitigating abrupt climate changes through aerosol diffusion to shield sunlight.
“Elimination of such climate research will lead to decisions regarding geoengineering and tipping points being made in a blind manner,” Rood cautioned.
The Trump administration has announced plans to dismantle Colorado’s National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is the largest climate research institute in the federal state.
Russ Vought, the White House Director of Management and Budget, revealed the proposal on Tuesday. In a statement on X.
“The National Science Foundation intends to dissolve the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado,” Vought stated. According to a USA Today report. “This facility is a core source of concern regarding climate change in our country. A thorough review is in progress, and vital activities related to climate research will be reassigned to another organization or location.”
This action could pose a significant blow to U.S. climate research, as United Nations and other global leaders indicate that time is running out to avert the dire consequences of global warming.
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, NCAR’s parent organization, issued a statement on Tuesday. They acknowledged awareness of the closures but had no further details.
“We are eager to collaborate with the administration to ensure the security and prosperity of our nation remains a top priority,” UCAR President Antonio Busalacci stated.
In response to an NBC News inquiry about NCAR’s fate, a senior White House official criticized Colorado Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat.
“Perhaps if Colorado had a governor willing to engage with President Trump, it would be more beneficial for voters,” said the official.
The official characterized NCAR as “a prominent research center perpetuating left-leaning climate change ideologies” and asserted that dismantling NCAR would “put an end to the research activities linked to the Green New Scam.”
Polis responded on Tuesday. He mentioned that Colorado has not received any communication about plans to dismantle NCAR, emphasizing that such actions would equate to an assault on science if confirmed.
“Climate change is a real issue, but NCAR’s contributions extend well beyond climate research,” Polis stated. “NCAR supplies crucial data on severe weather incidents like fires and floods, aiding our nation in safeguarding lives and property. If these cuts proceed, we risk losing our competitive edge against foreign adversaries in scientific exploration.”
Many within the climate and weather field expressed shock at this announcement.
Daniel Swain, a climatologist at UCLA, remarked: I commented on X that this would represent a “significant setback for American science.”
“This will disrupt not only climate research but also studies on weather, wildfires, and disasters that have supported decades of advancements in forecasting, early warnings, and resilience improvement,” Swain said, noting that the repercussions would cascade throughout the global weather and climate communities.
“NCAR has likely played an unparalleled role in enhancing weather forecasting and atmospheric modeling compared to any other organization worldwide,” he added.
Katherine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist and chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy, asserted that dismantling NCAR would be “akin to using a sledgehammer on the foundation of our scientific understanding of the planet.”
“Almost everyone studying climate and weather, not just in the U.S. but globally, has benefited from NCAR’s invaluable resources,” she mentioned on X.
Andy Hazelton, an associate scientist at the University of Miami’s Oceanic and Atmospheric Institute, described the decision to move resources as “incredibly shortsighted.”
Some Democratic representatives have pledged to fight against the closure of NCAR.
“This represents a dangerously blatant act of retaliation from the Trump administration,” stated Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colorado, whose constituency includes the climate research hub. I posted on X. “NCAR is a leading scientific facility globally, with our scientists engaging in pioneering research every day. We will use every legal avenue to combat this reckless directive.”
As climate change continues to undermine the icy habitats crucial for polar bear survival, new studies indicate that these bears are swiftly altering their genetic makeup to adapt.
This species is being compelled to cope with the increasingly harsh conditions of a warming Arctic, marking what scientists believe to be the first documented instance of rising temperatures prompting genetic adaptations in a mammal.
Research conducted by the University of East Anglia in the UK revealed findings: published in Friday’s issue of the journal Mobile DNA, which offers a rare glimmer of hope for these animals.
“Polar bears are sadly projected to face extinction this century, with two-thirds of their population potentially gone by 2050,” Alice Godden, the study’s lead author, shared with NBC News.
“We believe our findings genuinely provide a flicker of hope: a chance to reduce carbon emissions, mitigate climate change, and allow bears more time to adapt to significant changes in their habitats.”
Building on previous research from the University of Washington, Godden’s team studied blood samples from polar bears in northeastern and southeastern Greenland. In the comparatively warmer southern region, genes associated with heat stress, aging, and metabolism showed different behavior compared to those in the north.
“Essentially, this indicates that various groups of bears are modifying different segments of their DNA at varying rates, with this activity seemingly linked to their specific environmental and climatic contexts,” Godden mentioned in a university press release.
He remarked that this is the first indication that a distinct population of a species has been driven to “rewrite its own DNA,” suggesting this process is a “desperate survival mechanism” against disappearing sea ice.
The Arctic Ocean has consistently recorded unusually high temperatures in recent years, as reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Monitoring data suggests.
Researchers assert that rising ocean temperatures are diminishing the vital sea ice foundation that bears rely on for hunting seals, leading to isolation and food shortages.
Godden explained to NBC News that the genetic changes emerged as the bears’ digestive systems adapted to food scarcity, including a lack of prey, plant life, and low-fat diets.
“Access to food poses a critical challenge for these bears everywhere, particularly in the South,” she notes. “This may indicate that their physical structure and composition are also evolving in response to warmer surroundings.”
The lead researcher stated that her team targeted the southern bear group as the region’s warmer climate provides insights into what other bear populations may experience later this century if current climate trends persist.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates around 26,000 polar bears currently exist globally. Known scientifically as Ursus maritimus, or “sea bear,” these animals are classified as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, believed to be at “high risk of extinction in the wild.”
The research “doesn’t imply that polar bears are at a reduced risk of extinction,” Godden stated. However, she added this finding “could provide a genetic framework for how polar bears may swiftly adapt to climate change.”
Godden further urged, “We all need to take action to reduce our carbon footprint and create opportunities to protect and expand this incredible and vital species.”
Homo floresiensis A recent study indicates that Liang Bua, the cave where this diminutive hominin species resided for approximately 140,000 years, was deserted during a significant drought between 61,000 and 55,000 years ago.
Reconstruction of Homo floresiensis. Image credit: Elizabeth Danes.
Homo floresiensis was first identified in 2003 in Liang Bua, Flores Island, Indonesia.
This species, often referred to as hobbits due to their small size, challenged prevailing theories regarding human evolution.
It vanished from the fossil record around 50,000 years ago, but the reasons for its disappearance are still unclear.
“In 2003, excavations in the Liangbua rock trench unveiled the skeletons of a previously unknown small hominid species, Homo floresiensis,” stated Emeritus Professor Mike Gagan and colleagues from the University of Wollongong.
“Originally, the period of occupation was estimated to be between 95,000 and 12,000 years ago, suggesting the possibility of interaction with early modern humans (Homo sapiens), who inhabited islands in Southeast Asia and were contributing to species extinctions.”
“However, following a revision of the stratigraphy and chronology at this site, all Homo floresiensis human bones are now believed to be approximately 100,000 to 60,000 years old.”
“Associated stone artifacts and megafaunal assemblages typically suggest that Homo floresiensis went extinct around 50,000 years ago.”
“The revised timeline indicates they disappeared from the record around 46,000 years ago, coinciding with the arrival of modern humans at Liang Bua, and there was a significant shift in the types of materials used for making stone tools.”
In the study, the authors integrated chemical records from cave stalagmites with isotope data from the fossilized teeth of a pygmy elephant species, Stegodon florensis insularis, which Homo floresiensis hunted.
The findings reveal a large-scale drying trend that commenced around 76,000 years ago and peaked in severe droughts between 61,000 and 55,000 years ago, near the time when the species went extinct.
Prolonged drought and heightened competition for resources may have led to their abandonment of Liang Bua and, ultimately, their extinction.
“At that time, the ecosystem surrounding Liang Bua experienced significant drying. Homo floresiensis vanished,” remarked the lead author of the study, Emeritus Professor Mike Gagan from the University of Wollongong.
“The summer rains caused the riverbed to become dry seasonally, placing stress on both the hobbits and their prey.”
The population of pygmy elephants saw a drastic decline around 61,000 years ago, signaling the loss of a crucial food source for the hobbits.
“Surface freshwater, along with Stegodon and Homo floresiensis, all diminished simultaneously, showcasing the compounded effects of ecological stress,” stated Dr. Gerd van den Bergh from the University of Wollongong.
“Competition for the scarce water and food likely forced the hobbits to vacate Liang Bua.”
“Meanwhile, the fossils of Homo floresiensis predate the earliest evidence of modern humans on Flores, Homo sapiens, who were traversing the Indonesian archipelago when the hobbits went extinct.”
“It’s possible that the hobbits encountered modern humans while migrating in search of water and food,” Professor Gagan noted.
“In that context, climate change may have set the stage for their eventual extinction.”
The study was published in the journal Communication Earth and Environment.
_____
MK Gagan et al. 2025. The onset of summer dryness and forest decline of Homo floresiensis at Liang Bua 61,000 years ago. Communication Earth and Environment 6,992; doi: 10.1038/s43247-025-02961-3
Consider having a life-threatening illness. All scientific assessments point to a definitive diagnosis and a grim prognosis. Yet, upon visiting a doctor, they fail to acknowledge the condition directly. After some brief small talk, they shake your hand and suggest scheduling your next appointment in a year.
No one would accept such a medical standard, yet this mirrors our approach to climate change. The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP) Summit wrapped up last weekend in Belém, Brazil. While notable strides have been made in addressing climate change, particularly with the 2015 Paris Agreement aimed at restricting temperature increases to below 1.5°C, this goal is largely unachieved. Nonetheless, it steers us towards reduced warming compared to what might have been without it.
However, it’s evident that the COP process is becoming inadequate for the challenges we face. As highlighted in our report on page 6, COP30 concluded without even mentioning fossil fuels—the primary driver of climate change—in the final document. Despite over 80 nations advocating for a roadmap toward a “post-fossil fuel transition,” this initiative faced resistance from oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia, a former organizer of COP. The necessity of consensus within COP leaves us only with the promise of future discussions at COP31 in Turkey next year.
“
Nations advocating for climate action should prioritize solar power and battery technology. “
This situation cannot persist, but changing the COP process will be a challenge. If we can’t advocate for an end to the fossil fuel era through scientific and political means, we must turn to technological and economic solutions.
Nations committed to climate action should concentrate on solar energy and battery technologies, providing the world with cheaper alternatives to oil and gas. Countries striving for a sustainable future might need to implement economic sanctions against those showing disinterest in progress. Whatever the course of action, simply saying “see you next year” is no longer a viable option.
Wildfires in California this January exacerbated by climate change
Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images
Famine, economic downfall, civil unrest, and conflict are serious threats we encounter unless we take urgent steps to curb further global warming and safeguard nature, leading climate, food, health, and security specialists cautioned in London today.
A national emergency briefing organized by climate activists and researchers aims to persuade politicians of the necessity for immediate and significant action regarding the intertwined crises of climate and biodiversity.
“I’m fearful for my life and future, and even more for my son’s,” stated Hugh Montgomery, a doctor at University College London focused on climate change’s impact on health.
“We require leadership on par with that of World War II, as if the survival of society depended on it—because it truly does,” remarked Mike Berners-Lee, who led the event at Lancaster University in the UK.
He indicated new evidence suggests the planet is heating up more rapidly than before, as noted by Kevin Anderson from the University of Manchester. “There exists a small but very real possibility that temperatures could reach 4°C by the end of this century.”
“The potential for 3°C or 4°C of warming is incredibly severe. We simply cannot afford to take that risk. It presents an extreme and unstable climate far beyond the conditions that have supported our civilization,” Anderson warned. “We will witness an unparalleled social and ecological breakdown at such levels. Geopolitical tensions will heighten, and there will likely be no viable economy left. A systemic collapse awaits us.”
Anderson cautioned against what he termed “delay technologies,” which aim to maintain the prosperity of the oil and gas sector. These encompass hydrogen and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, according to him.
Hayley Fowler, a researcher at the University of Newcastle in the UK, stated that the impacts of warming are exceeding expectations. “Heat waves in Europe are escalating quicker than anywhere else globally and significantly faster than climate models predict,” she remarked.
The UK could face storms capable of releasing up to 35 centimeters of rain, leading to severe flooding as experienced in Germany in 2021. “However, like the people of Germany, we often fail to comprehend this until it occurs,” Fowler noted.
She emphasized that nations are unprepared for such extreme weather conditions. “We continue to construct infrastructure that cannot endure today’s climate, let alone what lies ahead.”
Tim Renton, a researcher from the University of Exeter in the UK, alerted about the danger of triggering critical tipping points, such as the potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
If the AMOC collapses, Arctic sea ice may extend southward as far as the North Sea during winter, Renton explained. London, for three months each year, could see temperatures plunge below freezing, with lows reaching -20°C (-4°F), but summers could be hotter than currently experienced.
Renton warned that Britain could face water shortages and an inability to produce food. “Globally, more than half of the area will become incapable of cultivating wheat and corn, leading to a major food security crisis,” he said.
He cited that food production has already been adversely impacted, as noted by Paul Behrens from Oxford University. “In the past decade, the UK has recorded three of its five worst grain harvests,” he pointed out.
Behrens cautioned that the situation is poised to worsen, leading to civil unrest. “We are at a crossroads: we can either allow our food system to collapse and continue our current trajectory, preparing for political and social turmoil, or we can take action now.”
Richard Nagy, a former British Army lieutenant general and national climate and security adviser, expressed concern over national security risks. “What troubles me most is not one crisis but a series of crises. Multiple crises converging—food, health, infrastructure, immigration, energy, extreme weather—where slow or ineffective responses erode public trust in government, resulting in a reactionary political climate that promises to tackle all these crises simultaneously.”
“We must realistically anticipate a future that others may fail to envision or wish to ignore, a future with monumental consequences if realized. Just because we may not like risk doesn’t mean it will disappear or that we can turn a blind eye to it,” Nuzi commented.
COP30 President Andre Correa de Lago (centre) alongside Advisor and UN Climate Change Secretary Simon Stiel (left)
Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty Images
The COP30 climate summit held by the United Nations in Brazil faced severe challenges, including heavy rainfall, protests, and a partial electrical fire. The concluding session was momentarily halted over objections to the perceived weakness of the finalized document.
Despite these hurdles, the globally recognized climate action framework continued, with nearly all nations except the United States engaging in 12 days of discussions in the Amazon to establish a unified framework.
Notably, the final agreement omitted any mention of fossil fuels, responsible for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions, despite a prior commitment made at COP28 in Dubai to pivot away from such energy sources. Over 80 nations at COP30 aimed for a detailed transition plan regarding fossil fuels, but oil-exporting nations excluded a key clause that mandated unanimous consent from all 194 countries.
“An agreement born out of climate change denial is a failed agreement,” remarked Diana Mejía, the Colombian representative, expressing support from delegates from Panama and Uruguay who voiced frustrations about Brazil’s dismissal of their comments before the text’s submission.
Brazil argued it was unaware of the request but committed to helping draft a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels outside the UN’s framework.
“It’s akin to designing a board game,” commented Natalie Jones, a professor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, reflecting on the stalled transition roadmap, “We’re engaged in play, yet some are still deliberating on the rule set.”
The final decision, named “Global Mutilan” after an indigenous Brazilian term for “collective endeavor,” at least indicated that international collaboration on climate issues has withstood some severe challenges this year, as U.N. Climate Secretary Simon Stiel noted. said in his closing remarks.
President Donald Trump again withdrew the United States, the second-largest emitter globally, from the COP process, threatening to do the same with Argentina, raising alarms about the potential collapse of annual negotiations. Throughout other global conferences this year, the U.S. has sought to advance talks on minimizing shipping emissions and reducing plastic pollution.
Corporate entities, industry coalitions, and non-profits have also begun retreating from addressing climate change, with Bill Gates suggesting a focus on poverty and health instead of emissions at COP30.
A decade post the Paris Agreement at COP21, which aimed to cap global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, we are currently experiencing steady progress towards 2.6℃— an increase that had already approached 4°C before the agreement’s onset.
In a letter to the UN last year, leading scientists and diplomats expressed concerns that the COP process is “no longer fit for purpose.” However, one of the letter’s signatories, former Irish president Mary Robinson, commented post-COP30 that many nations are moving forward “during a time when multilateralism is under stress.”
The nations reaffirmed their collective commitment to the Paris Agreement and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In conjunction with climate pledges, the G20 Summit Declaration was issued on the same day, while participants from major economies, along with the U.S., opted out, describing it as “a significant pushback against Trump.” Joanna Depledge, a COP historian at the University of Cambridge, remarked.
This conveys a strong message to businesses, investors, and local authorities, according to her.
As foreign aid budgets decline and the U.S. eliminates aid agencies, low-income nations are expressing dissatisfaction with historically large polluters for not aiding them in coping with climate challenges. COP30 acknowledged the necessity to devise a “just transition mechanism” for support, also promising to triple adaptation funding, though the specifics remain vague, and the original deadline of 2030 has been postponed to 2035.
“Beyond the just transition mechanism… there’s little to celebrate,” said Harjeet Singh from the Satthat Sampada Climate Foundation, which aids climate-vulnerable populations. “We should have aimed higher.”
COP30, convened in Belém at the Amazon’s edge, did not achieve consensus on a plan to halt and reverse deforestation, despite the efforts of over 90 nations. Prior to the summit, however, Brazil launched the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, an investment initiative rewarding countries for maintaining forest areas.
Brazil and its sponsors have so far contributed $6.6 billion to the fund, which is far below the $25 billion target. Tightening the fund’s operational guidelines is necessary, stated Kate Dooley from the University of Melbourne, indicating that it represents a welcome shift away from carbon offsets that yield no actual climate benefits.
“Brazil’s leadership on deforestation could be among the top outcomes from COP30,” remarked Marco Duso, a sustainability consultant at Ernst & Young. “And this leadership is resonating on the global stage.”
Climate change activists march on the sidelines of the COP30 summit in Belém, Brazil
Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty Images
A decade following the Paris Agreement, there should be a significant leap in climate initiatives. Yet, in the past four years, there has been scant advancement, highlighted by the latest COP summit, which did not make substantial progress in phasing out fossil fuels or curbing deforestation. What went wrong?
I cannot provide a clear answer. However, as the planet continues to warm and the consequences become increasingly dire, I fear our responses are leaning toward irrationality instead of rationality. If true, the resulting climate impacts may be far worse, and the decline of our global civilization could become a more plausible scenario than previously imagined.
Let’s revisit the 2015 Paris Agreement. The concept of an international climate accord, wherein each nation would establish its own greenhouse gas emission targets, seemed to me incredibly naive. The ambitious 1.5 degrees Celsius target was a stark shift from prior plans. Advocates claimed progress would be made incrementally through a “ratchet mechanism,” allowing nations to enhance their commitments over time.
I remained skeptical. I left Paris believing this was largely a façade for environmentalism. My expectation was minimal immediate influence but increased action as the consequences of warming became undeniable. In essence, reason would eventuate.
Yet, the opposite has occurred. Based on current policies, the Climate Action Tracker estimated back in 2015 that the world was on course for approximately 3.6°C of warming by 2100. By 2021, that figure was revised to around 2.6°C—a significant improvement, suggesting Paris was making strides.
However, the most recent Climate Action Tracker report prior to the COP30 summit presents grim findings. For four consecutive years, there has been “little or no measurable progress.” The report states, “Global progress remains stagnant.” Although a handful of countries are genuinely advancing, others are stalling or reversing their climate efforts.
While the increase in renewable energy generation is surpassing expectations, it’s counterbalanced by substantial funds still being allocated to fossil fuels. Simply harnessing cheap solar energy won’t suffice. The proliferation of solar installations can lead to diminishing returns on profits. Moreover, although producing green electricity is manageable, progress in more challenging sectors like agriculture, aviation, and steel manufacturing remains inadequate.
In addition, the issue is not solely the failure to reduce emissions; we are also ill-equipped to handle what’s coming. We continue constructing cities on sinking land adjacent to rising seas. As noted in an April report, “Adaptation progress is either too slow, stagnant, or misdirected,” a sentiment echoed by the UK’s Climate Change Committee.
The pressing question is why climate action has plateaued without intensification. In some regions, this is strikingly due to political leaders who either disregard climate change as a priority or blatantly deny it, such as seen with the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
Even those governments that vocalize climate change as a priority are taking minimal action, often citing more immediate concerns like the cost of living crisis. However, this crisis is intertwined with climate issues, as escalated severe weather patterns fuel rising food prices. As the climate continues to warm, the repercussions on food production and the broader economy will likely intensify.
Will we reach a moment where governments find themselves paralyzed on climate action due to the costs associated with combating rising sea levels inundating metropolises? Will citizens persist in supporting climate change deniers out of fear regarding global conditions, regardless of public opinion? Most individuals worldwide support increased climate action.
The notion that mounting evidence will lead leaders to rectify their course appears ever more naive. We navigate an unusual reality, reminiscent of the CDC’s handling of misinformation, such as the baseless anti-vaccination movements undermining public health even amid measles outbreaks, alongside some politicians suggesting that hurricanes stem from climate manipulation.
As we continue to break temperature records annually, the reality of climate change has never been clearer. But perhaps that’s part of the issue. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum posited that fear can drive detrimental behavior, prompting people to discard rational thought for fleeting pleasure over long-term benefits. Research indicates that environmental stress may lead individuals to act irrationally.
People often leap from perceiving difficulties to declaring imminent doom. No, we are not condemned. However, the longer rational thought is sidelined, the graver the consequences will become. Perhaps what we’re witnessing is merely a transient response linked to the pandemic’s aftermath and the Ukraine war. Alternatively, something more troubling might be unfolding.
Warm waters from the Atlantic near Greenland are now heating the deep layers of the Arctic Ocean, an area once considered relatively insulated from climate change.
The Arctic Ocean has seen a reduction of about 40% in its sea ice cover over the past 40 years, primarily due to the impact of atmospheric warming on sea levels. Researchers at the Ocean University of China evaluated the latest data collected by icebreakers to assess the temperature increase of the ocean floor.
In the Eurasian Basin, which is one of the ocean’s two principal sections, temperatures at depths ranging from 1500 meters to 2600 meters have increased by 0.074 degrees Celsius since 1990.
While this temperature rise may seem minor, it equates to nearly 500 trillion megajoules of energy. Such energy could potentially melt up to one-third of the least extensive sea ice area.
“The deep ocean is more dynamic than previously assumed,” states Chen Xianyao, one of the research team members. “We suspected that the deep ocean was warming, but not at this pace.”
An underwater ridge separating Greenland and Siberia divides the Arctic Ocean into two basins. The Amerasian Basin is primarily cut off from the Pacific Ocean by the shallow Bering Strait. However, warm Atlantic waters can still flow north along the Scandinavian coast into the upper Eurasian Basin through an extension of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). During winter, when seawater freezes, the salts are released, resulting in denser water that sinks and drags some warmer Atlantic water down with it.
Geothermal heat from the Earth warms the deep waters of the Eurasian Basin.
Previously, these warming trends were balanced by cold water flowing down from a neighboring basin east of Greenland. Yet, as the Greenland ice sheet continues to melt, more freshwater is entering the Greenland Basin. This influx has slowed the downward movement of cold, salty water, raising the temperature of deep waters in the Greenland Basin from -1.1°C to -0.7°C—a significantly rapid increase. Consequently, the influx of cold Greenland waters is no longer counteracting the heat from geothermal sources or the warm Atlantic waters sinking into the Arctic.
“The rising temperatures in the Greenland Basin are now reaching the Arctic,” says Son Louise, another research team member.
This research uncovers new warming mechanisms deep within the Arctic Ocean, “indicating a broader trend of global warming,” according to James McWilliams from UCLA.
The ongoing warming might eventually contribute to the melting of both sea ice and permafrost found on the ocean floor, which contains ice-like structures known as clathrates. If disturbed, these can release methane into the atmosphere, a phenomenon believed to have contributed to the Permian mass extinction.
aArtificial intelligence is frequently linked to massive electricity consumption, resulting in global warming emissions that often support unproductive or misleading gains which contribute little to human advancement.
However, some AI proponents at a significant UN climate summit are presenting an alternative perspective. Could AI actually assist in addressing the climate crisis rather than exacerbating it?
The discussion of “AI for good” resonated at the Cop30 conference in Belem, Brazil, where advocates claim AI has the potential to lower emissions through various efficiencies that could impact multiple aspects of daily life, including food, transportation, and energy—major contributors to environmental pollution.
Recently, a coalition of organizations, UN agencies, and the Brazilian government announced the establishment of the AI Climate Institute, a new global initiative aimed at leveraging AI as a tool for empowerment to assist developing nations in addressing environmental issues.
Proponents assert that, over time, this initiative will educate countries on utilizing AI in various ways to curb emissions, including enhancing public transportation, streamlining agricultural systems, and adjusting energy grids to facilitate the timely integration of renewable energy.
Forecasting weather patterns, including the mapping of impending climate crises like floods and wildfires, could also be refined through this approach, remarked Maria João Souza, executive director of Climate Change AI, one of the organizations involved in the initiative.
“Numerical weather prediction models demand significant computational power, which limits their implementation in many regions,” she noted. “I believe AI will act as a beneficial force that accelerates many of these advancements.”
Lorenzo Sarr, chief sustainability officer at Clarity AI and also present at Cop30, emphasized that AI could aid in tracking emissions and biodiversity, providing insights into current conditions.
“One can truly begin to identify the problem areas,” he said. “Then predictions can be made. These forecasts can address both short-term and long-term scenarios. We can predict next week’s flooding, and also analyze phenomena like rising sea levels.”
Sarr acknowledged valid concerns regarding AI’s societal and governance impacts, but he expressed optimism that the overall environmental outcomes could be beneficial. A report released in June by the London School of Economics delivered unexpectedly positive projections, suggesting that AI could slash global greenhouse gas emissions by 3.2 billion to 5.4 billion tons over the next decade, even factoring in significant energy usage.
“People already make poor energy choices, such as overusing their air conditioners,” Sarr commented. “How much of what we do on our phones is detrimental? It’s a recurring thought for me. How many hours do we spend scrolling through Instagram?”
“I believe society will gravitate toward this direction. We must consider how to prevent harming the planet through heating while ensuring a net positive impact.”
Yet, some experts and environmental advocates remain skeptical. The immense computational demands of AI, particularly in the case of generative models, are driving a surge in data centers in countries like the U.S., which consume vast quantities of electricity and water—even in drought-prone areas—leading to surging electricity costs in certain regions.
The climate ramifications of this AI surge, propelled by companies like Google, Meta, and OpenAI, are considerable and likely to increase, as indicated by a recent study from Cornell University. This impact is comparable to adding 10 million gasoline cars to the roads or matching the annual emissions of all of Norway.
“There exists a techno-utopian belief that AI will rescue us from the climate crisis,” stated Jean Hsu, a climate activist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “However, we know what truly will save us from the climate crisis: the gradual elimination of fossil fuels, not AI.”
While AI may indeed enhance efficiency and lower emissions, these same technologies can be leveraged to optimize fossil fuel extraction as well. A recent report by Wood Mackenzie estimated that AI could potentially unlock an additional trillion barrels of oil. Such a scenario, if accepted by energy markets, would obliterate any chances of preventing severe climate change.
Natasha Hospedares, lead attorney for AI at Client Earth, remarked that while the “AI for good” argument holds some validity, it represents “a very small niche” within a far larger industry focused primarily on maximizing profits.
“There is some evidence that AI could assist developing nations, but much of this is either in the early stages or remains hypothetical, and actual implementation is still lacking,” she stated. “Overall, we are significantly distant from achieving a state where AI consistently mitigates its detrimental environmental impacts.”
“The environmental consequences of AI are already alarming, and I don’t foresee a slowdown in data center expansion anytime soon. A minor fraction of AI is being applied for beneficial purposes, while the vast majority is being exploited by companies like Google and Meta, primarily for profit at the expense of the environment and human rights.”
Solar power plants in South Africa – discussions on clean energy support at COP30
Emmanuel Crozet/AFP via Getty Images
This year’s COP, commencing on November 10 in Belém, Brazil, is not expected to yield a substantial new global agreement for addressing climate change. The emphasis will be on clarifying the operational details of existing agreements.
Prior to the summit, nations were tasked with submitting revised pledges to lower emissions, called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). However, only 67 out of 195 signatories of the Paris Agreement have done so. Countries have until the end of October to revise their plans; ones to watch are the European Union, which has set targets as a consortium, and India, which is currently lagging. Additionally, President Donald Trump’s exit from the Paris Agreement effectively rendered the United States’ commitments void. Goals submitted under President Joe Biden’s administration are expected in December 2024.
On a more optimistic note, China has committed to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by 7 to 10 percent from their peak by 2035. While this falls short of curbing global warming to 2°C, it marks a progress towards the country’s initial absolute emissions reduction target. “This is a significant advance compared to what we’ve witnessed in the past, and it’s essential to view it positively,” remarked Manuel Pulgar Vidal, WWF’s global leader for climate and energy.
Adapting to climate change
Two agenda items may play critical roles in both mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Brazil is championing the Belém Action Mechanism for a Just Transition, a fresh approach that repositions the global shift to clean energy as an avenue for job creation and growth rather than just economic hardship. The initiative aims to aid nations in transforming key sectors such as energy, mining, and agriculture, anticipating pledges and systems to revamp industries while supporting communities impacted by these transitions.
However, in light of the severe backdrop of climate change, COP’s agenda seems to be transitioning from preventing climate change to adapting to its impacts. “COPs 1 through 29 unfolded under one climate paradigm; we now face a different climate reality, necessitating efforts to enhance safety for people,” noted Laurie Rayborn, a member of the climate think tank “Strategic Climate Risk Initiative.”
Another significant initiative is the Global Goals on Adaptation (GGA), which aims to quantify and compare the vulnerability of nations to climate change. It is set to include approximately 100 indicators like flood risk and food security. The GGA will facilitate global decisions on which nations should receive financial support and is a critical step toward financing those most affected.
However, world leaders must avoid becoming overly fixated on adaptation at the expense of mitigation, cautioned Leyborn. “There are scenarios where mitigation takes a backseat, but that leads to nowhere. Less mitigation translates to more adaptation, and we could be caught in a destructive cycle.”
Addressing fiscal disparities
As affluent nations fall short in providing the necessary financing for developing countries to adapt and combat climate change, Brazil aims to maintain funding aligned with the Baku to Belém roadmap. The target is to escalate global climate finance to $1.3 trillion annually by 2035.
Low-income nations are looking to their wealthier counterparts for subsidies while they struggle with the impacts of significant emissions that harm their agriculture. Wealthy nations are exploring funding avenues via private investments, debt exchanges, development bank support, and innovative financing strategies such as Tropical Forest Forever Facilities (TFFFs).
The TFFF is anticipated to launch formally at COP30 to finance forest conservation through private investment. Brazil and other nations will secure initial investments into the fund, which can then borrow nearly $100 billion from major private investors at favorable interest rates. The TFFF will reinvest these borrowed funds into sustainable initiatives that yield higher returns, with profits directly benefiting nations that safeguard their forests.
Brazil is already committing a billion dollars while the World Bank has agreed to host the fund by the end of October. The TFFF has the potential to create a sustainable conservation model that could generate $4 billion each year for the preservation of the world’s diminishing forests.
With few ambitious declarations anticipated at the COP, the pressure on the TFFF to succeed is rising, necessitating substantial investments from many nations in the billions.
“The TFFF’s launch is likely to be a highlight amid the struggles faced in international climate negotiations. Its success will serve as a crucial indicator for the future we face with significant climate shifts,” stated Simon Zadek from Morphosys, a Swiss climate finance consulting firm.
Preparatory ministerial meeting in Brasilia, Brazil ahead of COP30
Ton Molina/Bloomberg via Getty Images
As world leaders converge for the latest United Nations climate change conference a decade after the landmark COP21 summit in Paris, pessimism looms large. With the pivotal 1.5°C target already deemed unattainable and even the more lenient 2°C objective appearing increasingly elusive, the atmosphere is charged with concern.
The United Nations Environment Programme suggests, based on current national commitments, that the world is on track for a temperature rise of 2.3 to 2.5 degrees Celsius this century. Climatologists emphasize that the upcoming 30th United Nations Conference of the Parties in Belem, Brazil, could be crucial in altering the course of global warming, with oceans, forests, and polar ice sheets nearing tipping points. Significant action is essential to assist poorer nations in securing the estimated $1.3 trillion necessary each year by 2030 to transition away from fossil fuels, mitigate climate change, and adapt to its consequences.
Manuel Pulgar Vidal, WWF’s global leader in climate and energy, states, “The climate debate is under serious threat from not just political decisions but also economic, financial, and trade factors.” He adds that this makes the upcoming COP perhaps one of the most consequential since 2009, as vital as Paris but in an entirely different context.
In reality, however, the expectations held by negotiators are muted. The prospect of a groundbreaking multilateral agreement akin to that of Paris seems far-fetched in the current fragmented political landscape.
The previous COP29 held in Baku, Azerbaijan, concluded with disappointing outcomes, as wealthier nations pledged considerably fewer fiscal contributions than poorer counterparts anticipated. Consequently, trust in the COP process has diminished, leading to discussions on whether the existing framework is still viable.
“Private investment is lacking, nations appear to be retreating on their commitments to move away from fossil fuels, and there are no new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) offered,” remarks Claudio Angelo from Brazilian NGO Klima Observatory. “The atmosphere surrounding climate action feels incredibly strained.”
Tensions ignited by trade disputes and geopolitical conflicts have infiltrated climate negotiations, with former President Trump actively opposing climate initiatives. He notably withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and curtailed efforts to limit fossil fuel use, urging other nations to do the same. On October 17, the International Maritime Organization postponed the formal endorsement of a plan aimed at reducing maritime emissions, incited by Trump’s threats of sanctions against supportive countries.
Economic sluggishness, rising living costs, and a rise in populist sentiments are complicating the implementation of climate-friendly policies. “2025 is shaping up to be the worst year for global climate action,” concludes Angelo.
Europe was initially anticipated to take a leadership role in climate diplomacy following the withdrawal of U.S. support; however, the continent remains divided as defense priorities, trade issues, and escalating energy expenses dominate discussions.
In Brazil, the host nation, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—who campaigned on environmental protection—has approved new highway constructions in the Amazon and oil prospecting in the region, with an eye towards the upcoming elections.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva visits the main venue of COP30 in Belem
Alessandro Falco/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Bringing the COP to Belem is also a contentious choice. This first-ever Amazon COP aims to highlight the stories of those and the forests affected by climate change, underscoring the bold vision necessary for global salvation. The Ministry of the Environment has declared that a greater number of indigenous delegates than ever before will attend COP30.
Nonetheless, many participants regard this decision as imprudent. A shortage of available accommodation has driven up prices, forcing NGOs, diplomats, and businesses to seek alternative sleeping arrangements like tents, shipping containers, or hammocks.
The United Nations also restricts accreditation, leading to concerns that rather than being an “implementing COP,” this one may turn out to be an “empty COP.”
“An organization that had eight certifications last year only secured two this time,” notes Carla Cardenas from the Rights and Resources Initiative, a coalition advocating for land rights for indigenous peoples. Cardenas raised worries that civil society groups aiming to hold leaders accountable may face restrictions in attendance while oil and gas lobbying organizations, which possess larger budgets, remain unaffected.
Ahead of the summit, there are some indications of a positive shift. Fears that not enough leaders would attend to achieve a quorum have lessened, as high-profile figures like Britain’s Keir Starmer decide to make last-minute trips.
Amid declining multilateralism, Brazil, known for its mediating role on the global stage, could serve as an ideal host to unite divergent perspectives within climate diplomacy.
The president’s office is adopting a practical stance in negotiations, indicating that no major headline-making declarations are anticipated this time. Brazil’s focus will likely be on implementing existing agreements rather than chasing media-friendly headlines.
While substantial international breakthroughs in Belém are unlikely, there remains potential for cities, regions, and businesses committed to climate action to step forward, according to Thomas Hale from Oxford University. Groups of states collaborating to announce environmental initiatives could still have a significant influence.
“Countries resistant to change, like the U.S., may stay on the sidelines, but that won’t define where the real action occurs,” he explains. “Although we may not see international decisions made at COP that will move us forward fundamentally, it can still provide a framework for many positive initiatives to arise.”
President George H.W. Bush (left) and environmental protection advisor Bill Riley
Netflix
white house effect Directed by Boni Cohen, Pedro Cos, and John Schenck, available on Netflix starting October 31st
The opening scene of white house effect transports viewers to the devastating Great Drought of 1988. The backdrop is a scorching summer in North America, presenting the USA with its worst drought since the Dust Bowl. Relief is nowhere in sight; the heat is relentless.
This climate crisis defined the presidential election that year, pitting Democrat Michael Dukakis against Republican George H.W. Bush, who triumphed with a landslide victory on a pledge for enhanced environmental protection.
“Some may argue these challenges are insurmountable,” President Bush remarked during a campaign stop in Michigan, addressing climate change. “My belief is clear: it is achievable, and we must act. These matters transcend ideology and politics.” Such a sentiment from a prominent Republican seems unimaginable today.
In 1988, the U.S. was a nation where addressing environmental issues garnered votes, and where the connection between fossil fuels and climate change was discussed with a mix of urgency and skepticism.
Predominantly narrated through archival footage, white house effect serves as a window into a hopeful future that never came to fruition. It tells the tale of a populace ready to acknowledge climate change as a bipartisan issue, only to be steered away from that consensus.
The film centers on a struggle between two advisors to President Bush. In the blue corner, Bill Riley, former president of the World Wildlife Fund and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator starting in 1989. In the red corner stands John H. Sununu, the chief of staff known for his climate skepticism. These two figures will shape the environmental policies of the Bush administration and face off for years, with dire consequences for our planet.
“
George H.W. Bush stated that climate change knows no political boundaries. “
With hindsight, one could easily predict the outcome. Yet, what’s intriguing about white house effect is that it refrains from presenting this as inevitable. It explores a gradual march towards a destiny. The archival footage is always engaging, often shifting timelines to reinforce the film’s message, keeping the audience aware and engaged despite the grim reality on display.
Consider the 1979 energy crisis, during which Exxon experienced a staggering 119% profit increase while countless drivers waited hours to refuel due to plummeting oil production. One driver at a gas station remarked that everyone should just return home and await the gas shortage. When asked why he wasn’t turning back, he responded: “I’m not going back because no one else is.”
This documentary features numerous climate scientists, but none resonate more than Steven Schneider, a pioneer advocating for climate action. His journey forms the film’s emotional core, from his Senate testimony in 1988 to his final interview before his passing in 2010.
“Looking back at our early efforts, many of our immediate goals fell short. But here we are, making gradual progress,” he reflects. “The problem of global warming has been recognized, and we’re pushing for a cultural shift—something that will take a generation.”
It’s heart-wrenching to ponder how Mr. Schneider would view the last 15 years of fruitless attempts and the current direction of America.
Viewing white house effect can feel suffocating. It stirs frustration, particularly for those, like me, born too late to witness these events firsthand. While the film is polemical, it serves a vital purpose—shaking us out of apathy and urging action, no matter the cost.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
