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.
A study by top climate scientists projects that by the end of this century, humanity will undertake significant measures to block sunlight as a desperate effort to safeguard Earth’s population from the escalating impacts of climate change, as reported by New Scientist.
“Solar geoengineering is a troubling concept, yet it is becoming more appealing as global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fall short,” stated a respondent from Victoria University of Wellington, James Renwick.
According to the study, two-thirds of participants anticipate hazardous interventions will be employed to manage the atmosphere by the year 2100. Alarmingly, 52% believe these actions could be taken by irresponsible entities, including private firms, wealthy individuals, and nation-states, highlighting fears that attempts to cool the climate may proceed without comprehensive global governance to address decision-making or mitigate inherent risks.
“The potential for unintended consequences, political misuse, and abrupt climate impacts remains substantial,” a respondent remarked. Ines Camilloni of the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, noted these concerns.
New Scientist invited around 800 climate researchers, contributors to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report, to participate in an anonymous online survey concerning solar geoengineering. The 120 respondents represented diverse academic fields from all continents, yielding one of the most extensive insights into the climate science community’s stance on solar geoengineering so far.
Since the 1960s, scientists have been exploring ways to enhance Earth’s albedo—the reflectivity of the planet—for a procedure known as solar geoengineering or solar radiation modification (SRM).
Cooling strategies might include the injection of particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth, known as stratospheric aerosol injection. Another suggestion involves introducing salt particles into low-altitude ocean clouds, referred to as ocean cloud brightening (see “How does solar geoengineering operate?” below).
Solar geoengineering may involve injecting sea salt into ocean clouds.
San Francisco Chronicle/Yalonda M. James/eyevine
68% of respondents indicated that due to the global failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the last decade, the likelihood of deploying such measures has increased. “It reflects a growing realization that we are not addressing climate change effectively,” noted Sean Fitzgerald from the Center for Climate Change Remediation at the University of Cambridge. “What options do we have? We may not prefer them, but if we disapprove of the current situation, we must consider alternatives.”
While consensus exists regarding the potential for solar geoengineering, experts disagree on the triggers for such drastic measures. Just over 20% of respondents believe these measures should be considered should global temperatures be on track to rise more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, a scenario that is becoming increasingly likely with global warming surpassing the 1.5°C mark. Others argued that waiting for more extreme warming would be wiser, while over half felt current warming levels were insufficient to warrant serious consideration of atmospheric alteration.
Such actions could theoretically help lower global temperatures and provide time for emissions reductions, yet nearly all respondents recognized substantial risks associated with widespread implementation, including diminished motivation to cut emissions, disruption to vital agricultural rainfall patterns, and abrupt warming due to “termination shock” should these interventions cease.
The study further highlighted concerns regarding unilateral climate interventions by nations or individuals, with 81% of respondents agreeing that a new international treaty or framework is necessary to regulate all large-scale deployments, marking a significant consensus across the survey questions.
These findings reflect a cautious stance, according to Andy Parker from the Degrees Initiative. “This is a global technology. No nation can opt out of a geoengineered world. Similarly, no nation can choose to ignore a warmer world if geoengineering is rejected.”
Growing Interest in Geoengineering
New Scientist decided to undertake this research as interest in solar geoengineering grows amid escalating climate impacts. Hundreds of millions of dollars in funding are flowing into this area, with researchers presenting their findings at scientific forums, building a global research community. Earlier this year, the UK Government allocated £57 million in grants for solar geoengineering research via the Advanced Research and Inventions Agency (ARIA), supporting small-scale field experiments.
This represents a significant pivot for a field traditionally sidelined within climate science. Daniele Visioni has led numerous SRM modeling projects at Cornell University in New York. “This topic has transitioned from being loosely discussed by a small group of scholars to becoming a global issue.”
Just over one-third of the respondents from New Scientist‘s survey asserted that due to humanity’s ongoing struggle to cut emissions, they now support SRM research, albeit not necessarily its implementation. A notable 49% are in favor of conducting small-scale outdoor experiments to better understand the associated risks and benefits.
Accelerated cloud cooling could lead to drought in East Africa.
Fadel Senna/AFP via Getty Images
“There is growing acceptance of the necessity of SRM research,” Parker states, tying it directly to the increased pessimism surrounding climate change outcomes.
“Given that most surveyed experts believe solar radiation management is probable within the next century, we must collect comprehensive real-world data regarding the feasibility and potential impacts of these cooling strategies,” asserts Mark Symes, director of ARIA’s Climate Cooling Program.
However, support is by no means unanimous, with approximately 45% of respondents deeming this a contentious or taboo research area. A third opposed outdoor experimentation with any countermeasures, and 11% refrained from contributing to solar geoengineering studies to protect their professional reputation.
“Many of these climate scientists see that the initial vision of climate science—to heed the warnings of the Earth and reduce emissions—has failed,” according to Visioni.
Much hesitance regarding solar geoengineering stems from the multitude of potentially catastrophic risks associated with large-scale sunlight-reflecting efforts.
Almost all respondents noted that implementation might dampen motivation to reduce emissions as one of the most critical risks. Other significant threats included social and political unrest, severe disruptions to agriculture and food security, harm to delicate ecosystems, and public health crises. “Modifying the entire climate system through SRM is a considerable risk,” cautioned Shreekant Gupta at the Center for Social and Economic Progress in Delhi, India.
However, the ambiguity of “unknown consequences” emerged as the most commonly mentioned risk. One survey participant pointed out that “human efforts to rectify damaged systems have often met with limited success.”
Three primary techniques for solar geoengineering include:
1. Stratospheric aerosol injection This technique involves dispersing tiny liquid particles called aerosols from high-altitude aircraft to reflect sunlight. Over 60% of survey respondents identified this as the method most likely to be adopted.
2. Thinning of cirrus clouds This method utilizes aerosols such as nitric acid to thin cirrus clouds, permitting more heat to escape into space. However, excessive aerosol spraying can thicken clouds and produce the opposite effect. Only a minority of respondents believed this method or land-based strategies for enhancing global albedo could be pursued.
3. Brightening ocean clouds This approach involves spraying minute seawater droplets onto clouds, enhancing their brightness and increasing sunlight reflection. It was trialed in a small experiment in 2024 aimed at protecting the Great Barrier Reef. Approximately 16% of respondents felt this technique would likely be adopted.
Nearly two years ago, during the COP28 climate summit in the heart of the oil-rich United Arab Emirates, nations committed to begin “transitioning our energy systems away from fossil fuels” to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, the global share of energy sourced from fossil fuels has stubbornly remained over 80 percent, consistent with trends from previous decades.
Due to our inability to decarbonize, researchers now believe we have set off Earth’s first “tipping point,” a significant shift in climate that cannot be easily reversed. Current ocean temperatures are alarmingly high, putting coral reefs at risk of widespread death (see page 9).
What obstacles are impeding the energy transition? While there isn’t a straightforward answer, it is often noted that a select few companies, predominantly fossil fuel corporations, are responsible for the majority of emissions. Criticism of such statements is easy, as they deflect responsibility away from consumers who utilize this energy.
“
Major tech companies are minimizing earlier promises to achieve net zero “
However, it is reasonable to critique oil and gas firms that tout their ecological initiatives yet fail to follow through. Many of these companies promote their renewable energy investments, but in reality, their contributions to future energy production remain minimal (see page 16).
Regrettably, the situation appears poised to worsen before it improves. Encouraged by the Trump administration, numerous oil and gas companies have vowed to boost production, while significant players in other sectors, like tech, are downplaying their net-zero commitments.
Next month, governments are set to convene once more to deliberate on climate policy at COP30 in Brazil. While military action is unlikely from the United States, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has yet to confirm his participation. At this juncture, it’s reasonable to question whether any politicians or business leaders genuinely regard the climate change threat seriously. If they do, they must start demonstrating that urgency through action.
In a project that emphasizes the environmental consequences of technological consumption, artists have created pieces that illustrate the effects of the climate crisis on some of the world’s most renowned landscapes.
Locations such as Venice in Italy, the Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland, Iguazu Falls at the border of Argentina and Brazil, and the River Seine in Paris serve as study points for potential impacts from the climate crisis anticipated by the end of the century. An exhibition in London will showcase the findings.
Current status and visualization of the Giant’s Causeway. Written by Alex Griffiths
Mark Maslin, a professor of earth system science at University College London, employed climate modeling to evaluate the minimum and maximum damage at each site. A group of artists interpreted his findings for a display at Back Market’s Last Shot Gallery. The aim of the artwork is not to forecast exact conditions in these locations, but to elevate consciousness regarding the threats posed by climate change.
Maslin addressed the environmental repercussions of technological consumption. Estimations suggest that human actions account for 6% of the climate crisis, which is double that of the airline sector.
“There is an unawareness regarding how much the devices people constantly use and replace are contributing to overconsumption, vast pollution, and climate change,” he states. “We aim to raise that awareness. Many who utilize their phones daily are oblivious to the impact on the planet.”
Current status and visualization of Moraine Lake in Canada. Written by Hugh Jardine
The environmental damage from rapid technological advancement stems from the extraction of materials such as tantalum, cobalt, and tin—a process notoriously damaging socially and environmentally—and the disposal of e-waste, which emits harmful greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide when burned or pollutes soil and water with toxins when irresponsibly discarded in landfills.
He mentioned that the EU is implementing legislation aimed at curbing built-in obsolescence, which includes regulations on universal chargers to reduce the chaos of myriad wires and plugs piling up in homes.
Tech companies are resisting accusations from Bullock and other lawmakers of disrupting the free market. In June 2024, the EU passed a directive that requires a broader selection of product repairs, extends legal guarantees, and forbids manufacturers from obstructing third-party components.
Iguazu Falls, present day and visualization by Osman G.
In the UK, regulations have been active since 2021 concerning certain household appliances. However, there are ongoing concerns about their overall effectiveness.
“Our studies indicate that while individuals are aware of the shifts occurring around them, many still lack an understanding of how their daily choices, particularly regarding technology, relate to the broader context,” stated Luke Forshaw, head of brand and marketing at Back Market, a global marketplace focusing on regenerative technology, which collaborated with Maslin to organize the exhibition.
Venice – present and visualization. Written by Archie McGrath and Josiah Naggar
A record was set in 2022 with 62 million tons of e-waste produced, marking it as one of the world’s fastest-growing waste streams. Forshaw points out that it’s crucial now more than ever to reevaluate our relationship with technology, opting for sustainability over contributing to landfills. “Making sustainable choices more affordable, accessible, and transparent is essential to bridging that gap,” he remarked.
5 Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint
Your phone contains valuable materials that can be reused. Photo: Maxim Emelyanov/Alamy
Choose the technology that suits you and stick with it.
Remember that mobile phones hold valuable materials that should be reused, not discarded.
Sell your old device either to a reputable reuse shop or privately.
Maintain your phone’s battery between 20% and 80% for optimal longevity.
Keep your device clean, removing dust from charging ports.
The exhibition is at the Last Shot Gallery on October 17th in Fitzrovia, central London.
Coral reefs are critically threatened by climate change
WaterFrame/Alamy
The recent surge in ocean temperatures has led to extensive bleaching and mortality of warm-water corals globally, marking the onset of the first climate tipping point in an ecosystem on Earth, as stated by scientists.
The deterioration of one of the planet’s most biodiverse and vulnerable ecosystems presents ‘risks to human health and safety’ for which governments are inadequately prepared, cautions Melanie McField, who oversees Florida’s “Healthy Reefs for Healthy People” conservation initiative under the Smithsonian Institution.
Warm-water coral reefs account for one-third of all known marine biodiversity and offer food, coastal protection, and livelihoods for approximately one billion individuals worldwide. Additionally, coral reefs contribute $9.9 trillion annually in goods and services globally.
However, corals are particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in water temperature. Record-breaking global temperatures in 2023 have elevated ocean heat levels to unprecedented highs, resulting in significant bleaching events impacting over 80 percent of the world’s corals. Bleaching occurs when corals react to elevated water temperatures by expelling the algae residing within their tissues, leading them to bleach white. This process can make corals more prone to disease, and prolonged bleaching can deplete their primary food supply, ultimately leading to their death.
The most recent bleaching event represented “an order of magnitude” beyond what scientists had previously witnessed, according to McField. “We are at a tipping point,” she acknowledged. This is generally understood as a crucial threshold that, if crossed, can trigger dramatic and potentially irreversible changes in the climate system.
McField contributed to the chapter on corals in the Global Tipping Point Report 2025, which is now available for purchase. This report, the first update since 2023, was compiled by 160 scientists globally and coordinated by the University of Exeter and campaign organization WWF. It warns that warm-water corals are the initial component of the Earth system to reach a tipping point and are currently facing an “unprecedented crisis.”
Leading experts estimate that the thermal threshold for warm-water corals will be reached at a 1.2 degrees Celsius increase in global atmospheric temperatures above pre-industrial levels, with an upper limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius. By 2024, the world’s average temperature is expected to surpass this 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold for the first time in human history, exceeding the limits within which coral reefs can survive, noted Tim Renton, who spearheaded the report at the University of Exeter.
“We assessed the world at a temperature of 1.5 degrees Celsius and confirmed the results,” he stated during a press conference ahead of the report’s release. “Most coral reefs are at risk of large-scale mortality or bleaching and are transitioning into a different state dominated by seaweed and algae.”
The most promising chance to save the world’s warm-water corals from near-total extinction lies in rapidly reducing global average temperatures to 1.2 degrees Celsius below pre-industrial levels, Renton asserts. However, whether this ambitious goal, which exceeds even the targets set for 1.5°C, is attainable remains uncertain.
Terry Hughes, a researcher from Australia’s James Cook University, emphasizes that “few unbleached coral reefs remain worldwide”. Nonetheless, there is still potential for improvement. “If global greenhouse gas emissions are swiftly curtailed, we can influence the future of coral reefs over the next few decades,” he states.
Although the timing of climate tipping points is often uncertain, researchers caution that significant declines in the Amazon rainforest, melting of polar ice sheets, and collapse of the crucial AMOC current may all occur at warming levels below 2°C.
Moreover, humans can also instigate “positive tipping points” to mitigate these risks, Renton highlighted, pointing to the rapid advancements in renewable energy and the increased adoption of electric vehicles in the past decade. Fast-tracking cleaner technologies could significantly reduce emissions and help keep global warming well below 2°C, the report suggests.
Renton stated that immediate action is crucial from world leaders during the upcoming COP30 summit in Brazil to expedite emissions reductions across the global economy and minimize the duration for which global temperatures exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius. “We are swiftly nearing tipping points in various Earth systems that could have catastrophic impacts on humanity and nature, fundamentally altering the planet. This necessitates immediate and unprecedented action from COP30 leaders and policymakers worldwide,” he urged.
“Everyone knows that airplanes negatively impact the climate…”
Oversnap/Getty Images
Years ago, I attended a climate science conference at University College London. While the specifics of the meeting are lost to me, the day remains vivid. Upon arrival, I encountered demonstrators outside, a familiar sight at such events that typically draw both supporters and skeptics of climate change.
Initially, the protesters conducted themselves peacefully, and I chose to enter the conference. Around mid-morning, however, they disrupted the lecture hall, heckling the speaker before storming the stage with their slogans and signs.
The protesters were unlike any I had encountered. Instead of being traditional climate activists or skeptics, one was a proponent of a conspiracy theory called chemtrails. In essence, this theory posits that the condensation trails (contrails) left by aircraft contain harmful substances deliberately released to manipulate the weather, poison people, or serve other sinister purposes.
This is untrue. Contrails are simply long streaks of ice crystals created when water vapor in engine exhaust freezes in the cold air at cruising altitudes. While they typically dissipate quickly, under certain conditions they can linger for hours, forming what conspiracy theorists label as chemtrails.
Like many conspiracy theories, this one carries elements of truth. Although contrails may look stunning against a summer sky, they nevertheless contribute to environmental damage.
It’s well-established that airplanes have an adverse effect on the climate. Burning aviation fuel represents about 2.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, contrails and contrail-induced clouds are categorized as “aeronautical non-carbon dioxide.” The climatic effects might be equally or even more severe.
This is attributable to basic physics. Similar to greenhouse gases, ice crystals in cirrus clouds trap infrared radiation escaping from Earth, generating a warming effect. They also reflect incoming sunlight, counteracting this effect. Ultimately, though, they contribute to global warming.
In reality, the impact of contrails on climate is not completely understood. Last year, NASA acknowledged this knowledge gap and asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to investigate the climatic repercussions of contrails and suggest research methodologies.
“
Contrails may look eerily beautiful on a summer evening, but they are quietly harming the environment. “
Recently published, the report states that contrails might contribute to warming potentially exceeding that of aviation fuel, though significant uncertainty remains. Fortunately, options exist to mitigate this impact, including altering fuel formulations, refining engine designs, and rerouting flights to avoid areas conducive to contrail formation.
The report does not mention chemtrails, which is sensible. While the panel might have considered debunking this unfounded conspiracy theory, they opted not to give it publicity. Regardless, the report is unlikely to effect change, especially under the current US administration. Donald Trump’s administration has shown a tendency towards anti-science and conspiracy-driven climate skepticism, making addressing contrails a low priority. Significant regulatory changes regarding the airline and fossil fuel industries are necessary, so don’t expect immediate action.
I suspect that the airline and fossil fuel sectors silently welcome chemtrail theorists; their distractions divert attention from the true implications of contrails on climate.
Instead, the report will likely collect dust, while another report on chemtrails gets commissioned. Reports associate President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., with the conspiracy as part of an unscientific initiative to make America healthy again. Despite the absence of credible evidence, the notion persists.
Earlier this year, while enjoying a sunny afternoon, I had a conversation with my neighbors. “Have a nice day,” I said. “If they weren’t here, they will be,” he replied, gesturing skyward at intersecting contrails. He, too, is a climate change skeptic.
The chemtrail conspiracy is inherently frustrating—wholly futile. Despite their lack of scientific understanding, conspiracy theorists seem to think their beliefs will yield results. They are intrinsically distrustful of corporate and governmental authority and care about both environmental and human welfare. Yet, their actions only draw attention away from genuine protests and misallocate it toward unfounded notions.
The UCL meeting ultimately succumbed to continuous protests. If the dissenters believed they had triumphed, they were mistaken. Climate change remains a grave threat—chemtrails do not exist.
With emissions continuing to rise, how can we foster hope for the future?
Qilai Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images
In the media, the climate crisis can often seem overwhelming with daily warnings about environmental degradation and extreme weather events. However, how do climate scientists cope with the relentless reality of a shifting planet? What lessons can they share regarding the intense emotions that climate change provokes? Is there a way to leverage these feelings constructively?
New Scientist Recently, I spoke with New York-based climate scientist Kate Marvel and Tim Renton, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter, UK. Both have dedicated years to modeling the interactions of our planet in response to rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. Each has authored recent works that provide insights on how to engage with and address climate emergencies.
At first glance, their books may appear quite distinct. Humanity by Marvel comprises a series of essays delving into the emotional responses elicited by climate change. In contrast, Renton’s work, A Positive Turning Point, emphasizes actionable strategies and solutions. It argues compellingly that with appropriate social, economic, and technological interventions, a significant shift toward a cleaner world is achievable.
Nonetheless, both books center around accepting our feelings about climate change, enabling us to reshape our thoughts and actions. During our discussion, Renton and Marvel emphasized why we should embrace anger, fear, pride, and hope regarding our future on this planet.
Rowan Hooper: Kate, your book discusses nine emotional perspectives on our changing planet. Would you mind starting with anger?
Kate Marvel: The chapter on anger was one of the most straightforward for me to write. I aimed to explore the historical context of climate change discovery, particularly how it intertwines with the actions of those who misrepresent it.
For example, there’s a research team striving to show that the majority of excess carbon dioxide in our atmosphere originates from fossil fuel sources, conducting innovative experiments to confirm this. They’ve deployed large ships to gather sea measurements and ultimately they’ve constructed a climate model with highly accurate predictions. Interestingly, the story traces back to an oil company, which fills me with anger. They were aware of the truths that many are just beginning to confront.
RH: Can this anger drive positive action?
KM: That’s my hope. It can be easy to fall into a negative spiral fueled solely by anger. Social media often exacerbates this outrage, but that sort of unproductive rage doesn’t lead to meaningful change.
RH: Your book also addresses emotions such as wonder, guilt, fear, sadness, surprise, pride, hope, and love. Can you share your approach to navigating these emotions?
KM: It was important for me to convey that there isn’t a singular way to feel about climate change. I often grew frustrated by narratives that insinuate you must adhere to one emotion—such as fear or anger. Living on Earth means acknowledging conflicting feelings; you care deeply about what unfolds here because your loved ones do as well.
Tim Renton examines “tipping points” within ecosystems that could impact the broader climate scenario.
University of Exeter
RH: Tim, what strategies do you use to handle the emotions tied to climate change research?
Tim Renton: My focus has been on climate tipping points that could have serious implications, some of which are already beginning to manifest. For instance, up to five billion people globally depend on tropical coral reefs that are currently threatened.
Having studied this for nearly 20 years, I’ve had to cultivate a mental framework that grapples with complex systems while seeking evidence that fosters my optimism. It’s about finding plausible pathways toward necessary changes without falling into naive hope.
RH: Is it vital to strike a balance between realism and hope?
TL: Yes, that’s what I consider conditional optimism. I remain hopeful that as people read, they might join me on this journey. History shows us that meaningful inspiration comes from a handful of committed individuals.
Madeleine Cuff: Tim, much of your work revolves around the notion of tipping points. For those unfamiliar, can you explain what that entails?
TL: A tipping point refers to a moment when minor alterations result in significant impacts on systemic states and destinies. In the context of climate change, this includes major ice sheets, ocean circulations, and key biospheric aspects that can transition between stable states. For instance, the Amazon rainforest could shift into a degraded forest or savanna.
MC: What does a positive turning point look like?
TL: Drawing from various fields over decades, I’ve seen that social changes can reach a tipping point. Social protests can appear to ignite a revolution, and technological advancements can also lead to significant shifts. There’s a point when a new technology can effectively replace an existing one.
RH: A clear example is the rise of electric vehicles and the decreasing costs of solar energy. How do these contribute to a positive turning point?
TL: We need to focus on actions that facilitate positive tipping points. We must accelerate the decarbonization process significantly. Fortunately, everyone plays a role in this transition.
At the most basic level, adopting new behaviors like reducing meat consumption or embracing technologies such as electric vehicles and solar power is crucial. Most individuals have investment funds, so it is essential to scrutinize where these funds are allocated.
The narrative surrounding positive turning points often begins with passionate social activists and innovators who envision new technologies or those eager to create change.
In her research, Kate Marvel seeks to enhance our understanding of the planet’s changing climate.
Roy Rochlin/Getty Images
MC: Kate, while we’ve touched on the negative emotions related to climate change, what about the positive feelings? How can they spur constructive actions?
KM: I began my book with a chapter on Wonder. When you take a step back to consider our planet and how much we understand it, it’s quite astonishing. This awe can forge connections and initiate conversations.
Typically, when I introduce myself as a climate scientist, people tend to disengage. But framing discussions around wonder can invite curiosity—for instance, asking, “Did you know that Earth’s water is likely older than our planet?” This fosters engagement. Utilizing a spectrum of emotions can be an effective communication strategy.
Research indicates that positively experienced emotions can be motivating. Pride in our achievements and the fulfillment of instigating change are significant. Social science data consistently points to love—love for family, friends, and community—as a powerful motivator for climate action. We all recognize the strength of such feelings.
My chapter on hope explores our complicated relationship with it. When asked if I hope for solutions to climate change, I compare it to asking if I hope to clean my bathroom; it’s not really a question of hope but a question of action we already know how to undertake.
As Tim rightly notes, many solutions are already at hand. We are making progress but need to increase the momentum to reach that critical turning point.
RH: We must confront our emotions, right? This might explain why so many struggle to engage with the issue—it can feel too immense to face.
KM: Absolutely. I ponder this daily, yet remain confounded by its complexity. The problem stems from global industrial activity, with CO2 and other greenhouse gases diffusing through the atmosphere and impacting life globally.
It’s daunting to distill such a vast issue into something easily digestible. The significance of what this entails and the actions required can span a lifetime of work.
Many Americans express concern about climate change and wish for governmental action. However, polls often reveal that individuals believe others are less concerned. One of the most impactful actions an individual can take regarding climate change is to discuss it openly. By talking about it, we begin to realize we are not alone.
RH: What do you hope readers will take away from your book?
KM: I want readers to explore how they can resonate with their communities through shared experiences and narratives.
TL: My goal is for readers to feel empowered to act on what might seem like a daunting and insurmountable situation, instilling a sense of agency instead.
This is an edited version of the original interview conducted for New Scientist’s The World, The Universe, Us Podcasts.
What actionable steps can we take regarding climate change? Tune in to Matt’s explanation on how to transform despair into action on October 18th at NewsCientist.com/nslmag
The average size of trees in the Amazon Rainforest is gradually increasing as carbon dioxide levels rise. This means that these larger trees play a crucial role in determining whether the forest acts as a carbon sink.
How forests adapt to changing climates remains a significant question. One theory suggests that larger trees are more vulnerable to reductions as they face challenges from climate-related phenomena, such as droughts and high winds. Understanding how forests respond to these changes is crucial for future climate models.2 It’s essential to address atmospheric issues to mitigate global warming.
Adriane Esquivel-Muelbert from Cambridge University and her team at the Rainfor Amazon Forest Inventory Network have measured tree diameters in 188 plots averaging 12,000 square meters across the Amazon Basin. The monitoring period varied, with some plots observed for around 30 years. Meanwhile, 2 atmospheric concentrations are reaching near record levels.
“We monitor certain areas in the forest where the average tree size has increased over time. This indicates that these trees are capable of storing more carbon than they did in the past,” researchers noted, highlighting an average diameter increase of about 3.3% every decade.
“The structural composition of the Amazon forest is continually changing throughout the basin,” says team member Rebecca Bunberry Morgan from the University of Bristol, UK. “There are more sizable trees and fewer smaller ones, indicating a shift in average size towards larger trees.”
She adds that the average diameter of trees in mature, undisturbed forest areas remains relatively constant as they replace and grow larger trees where seedlings have fallen. Researchers believe that Amazon trees are responding positively to the increasing atmospheric 2 levels, resulting in enhanced growth and biomass accumulation. “Larger trees tend to thrive as they compete more effectively for light and water,” remarks Esquivel-Muelbert.
This implies that large trees are disproportionately vital for the carbon storage capacity of the forest, meaning their loss would have significantly adverse effects, she concludes.
“A key finding is that 2 wood serves as a globally significant carbon sink, functioning as a fertilizer that promotes tree growth while being influenced by many factors.” Peter Etchells at Durham University, UK, states, “However, this could change as climate continues to evolve, potentially impacting the balance of growth, nutrient availability, temperature, and CO.2?”
Carbon Capture and Storage Cement Plant in Padeswood, Wales
Padeswood CCS
Commercial carbon capture systems for cement facilities are currently being rolled out, signaling a potential turn towards net-zero emissions for one of the most challenging sectors in the industry.
As reported by German company Heidelberg Materials, the inaugural carbon capture cement plant has been operational in Norway since June, with the first “carbon cement” products slated for delivery to the UK and other European countries next month.
In tandem, construction of carbon capture infrastructure at the Padeswood cement plant in North Wales is set to commence shortly, following a subsidy agreement revealed this week between the UK government and Heidelberg representatives. Several similar facilities are also in the pipeline for Sweden, Germany, and Poland.
This advancement represents a critical leap forward in the cement industry’s quest to cut emissions, a long-recognized hurdle in decarbonization efforts. “That’s significant progress,” states Paul Fennell of Imperial College London, referring to the projects in Norway and the UK.
Cement contributes to roughly 8% of global carbon emissions, according to Chatham House, a think tank. Much of this carbon dioxide is emitted by the chemical processes that create clinkers, the primary component of Portland cement, the most widely used construction material. “Regular Portland cement production inherently generates substantial CO2 due to essential chemical reactions,” Fennell explains.
Capturing CO2 generated from these processes is regarded as the only viable option for significantly decarbonizing cement production. Yet, this method is costly, with estimates ranging from 50-200 euros needed to capture, transport, and permanently store large amounts of carbon from European cement operations, as outlined in an analysis by the Bank of Netherlands here.
The Brebik plant in Heidelberg, Norway, benefits from government subsidies. Its carbon capture infrastructure accounts for 50% of the cement facility’s overall emissions. It operates by removing CO2 from the exhaust of cement plants using an ammonia-based solvent known as amines. The extracted CO2 is then released from the solvent, liquefied, and stored beneath the seabed in Norway.
The Padeswood Plant employs similar amine technology, but when the carbon capture and storage systems become operational in 2029, it is projected to eliminate around 95% of the plant’s emissions, according to the UK CEO of Heidelberg Materials, Simon Willis. This translates to approximately 800,000 tons of CO2 annually. The Padeswood facility is anticipated to sequester more CO2 than the Brevik plant, but that is largely due to the lack of additional energy supplies required to achieve the 95% reduction at Brevik.
Construction is expected to start in the coming weeks, with the UK government agreeing to subsidize the operational costs of the technology—although details of this funding agreement remain undisclosed. “The fundamental premise is that the government is providing us with funds to assist in establishing and operating carbon capture facilities,” Willis states.
According to Leon Black from the University of Leeds, UK, government financial backing is crucial for constructing the initial fleet of cement plants focused on carbon capture and storage. “Carbon capture and storage would not be feasible without governmental aid,” he asserts.
However, emerging technologies hold the promise of enhanced energy efficiency, and costs are anticipated to decrease over time. In Germany, for instance, Heidelberg is collaborating with a consortium exploring Oxifuer technology, which involves recirculating exhaust gases back to the burner, increasing the CO2 concentration in exhaust gases to around 70%, thereby making the carbon capture process more efficient.
Leveraging artificial intelligence can aid the global fight against the climate crisis, but it’s essential for governments to implement regulations on this technology, stated the UN’s director of climate affairs.
AI enhances the efficiency of energy systems and creates tools to lower carbon emissions in industrial practices. The United Nations employs AI to support climate diplomacy efforts as well.
However, Simon Stiel, the executive director of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, expressed that the significant energy demands of large data centers raise concerns that necessitate governmental action.
“AI isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution; it carries risks. Yet, it has the potential to be transformative. We need to mitigate those risks while amplifying its catalytic power,” he remarked. “As we manage significant AI platforms, we will innovate ways to run them using renewable energy and encourage energy efficiency.”
He continued, “AI doesn’t replace human effort; it enhances our abilities. Most crucially, it is a force that drives tangible results, aiding in microgrid management, climate risk assessment, and resilient planning.”
Stiel offered an optimistic perspective on global climate actions, asserting that the world is “aligned with the Paris Agreement,” anticipating a surge in renewable energy and new governmental commitments to cut carbon emissions.
Confronted with strong opposition from Donald Trump’s administration, he staunchly defended climate diplomacy while observing the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where world leaders convened amidst significant geopolitical and economic challenges.
“If we look beyond the distractions, the evidence indicates a world that aligns with the Paris Agreement,” he stated. “Investment in renewable energy has soared tenfold over the past decade, with the clean energy transition flourishing across almost all major economies, reaching $2 trillion last year alone.”
While China is at the forefront of the global clean energy surge, nations such as the EU, India, several African countries, and Latin America are also widely adopting clean alternatives. However, investments face hurdles due to the obstacles posed by Trump’s dismantling of federal climate initiatives, even as many state governments and companies uphold their commitments.
Though businesses are recognizing the economic potential of transitioning to a low-carbon future, they still require more investment. A recent study revealed that out of over 700 low-carbon industrial facilities planned worldwide, only 15 secured the necessary funding for full production, representing a remarkable $1.6 trillion (£1.2 trillion) opportunity for investors.
Referring to this research, Stiel emphasized, “We’re not waiting for a miracle. The economics are favorable. Over 90% of newly installed renewables are cheaper than the least expensive new fossil fuel options. The technology and solutions are already available.”
However, he noted that despite companies acknowledging the shift, the tangible benefits of transitioning to a low-carbon economy have yet to be felt in households. “This boom is uneven. Its substantial benefits aren’t equitably distributed,” Stiel remarked.
He further noted that the impacts of the climate crisis are accelerating, necessitating quicker progress. Governments are obliged to develop a new national plan, known as the NDC, for controlling greenhouse gases in accordance with the Paris Agreement. While these were expected to be ready by February, Stiel has extended the deadline ahead of the Crunch COP30 Climate Summit in Brazil this November.
Numerous major economies, including the EU, China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, have yet to officially submit their national plans, while Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement.
In a recent interview with The Guardian, Stiel, who emphasizes the positive economic prospects arising during the climate crisis, stated, “Every challenge has its skeptics.”
“We are now reinforcing and transmitting a stronger, unmistakable message: the world remains firmly committed to the Paris Agreement and is fully engaged in climate collaboration.
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.
