Flammability assessments on western juniper trees (Juniperus occidentalis)
Rebecca Koll
In a laboratory at the University of Exeter, UK, Rebecca Koll is examining conifer species to explore critical questions related to future forest fire dynamics.
Wildfire severity is on the rise globally as temperatures continue to increase. This is largely attributed to heightened heat, prolonged drought, and stronger winds, all of which elevate the risk of igniting timber when sparks occur.
Yet, Koll is among a team of researchers who believe that factors beyond drought are influencing fire risk. “Is climate change actually altering the properties of the plants? I’m quite certain it is,” she shares.
She posits that climate stress factors could be modifying leaf chemistry. With an increase in UV radiation, plants may produce more volatile compounds as a stress response.
While global initiatives aimed at restoring the ozone layer may mitigate UV radiation risks, studies indicate that climate change, especially the uptick in hot, clear days in Northern and Eastern Europe, has resulted in rising ground-level UVB levels in recent years. Models predict that this may escalate later in the century.
Koll is currently engaged in a project examining changes in leaf chemistry and flammability by exposing 87 conifer species to elevated UVB levels. Using climate-controlled chambers with optimal temperature and moisture regimens, they simulate exposure levels tripled compared to current conditions. After 4 to 8 weeks, the trees undergo analysis and combustion tests to evaluate their flammability.
“It’s designed to be an ideal environment. These plants are in a very favorable climate, except we bombard them with radiation,” Koll explains. “We’re observing early signs of yellowing in areas that should remain green. Their biochemical reactions during various tests are altering the chemistry of their leaves,” she elaborates.
The pivotal question remains whether these biochemical shifts will lead to heightened flammability and if they elucidate the increasing intensity of forest fires. “We’re already elevating UV levels in our natural settings,” Koll notes. “This may imply that the risk extends beyond drought to include the direct impacts on plant biology.”
Uncovering these insights could provide scientists with a clearer understanding of wildfire risks in the predominantly coniferous regions of the Northern Hemisphere. “This is fundamentally what leads to severe home destruction,” Koll states. “The natural surroundings are becoming increasingly flammable.”
This project is among the initial experiments conducted at the University of Exeter’s Global Weather Simulator, a newly established facility dedicated to plant research that opened this year. The climate control chambers can recreate variations in wind, precipitation, heat, and atmospheric variables to analyze how plants and insects respond to rapid climatic shifts.
Matthew Robson of the University of Cumbria emphasizes that this research may confirm the significance of leaf compound changes in determining certain tree species’ flammability. “The relative impact of these climatic factors on volatile and combustible carbon-rich compounds has not been thoroughly explored, which makes the current research at Exeter particularly intriguing,” he states.
Research conducted by the Wildlife Conservation Association highlights the diverse wildlife that frequents artificial watering holes in the Mayan forests of Guatemala.
Jaguars find respite from the heat in Guatemala’s artificial waterfall hole. Image credit: WCS Guatemala.
As temperatures rise in Mesoamerica, protected areas in northern Guatemala are confronting increasing ecological challenges, primarily due to severe water shortages negatively impacting local wildlife.
In response, the conservation organization has taken proactive measures to safeguard biodiversity in two key ecosystems: Laguna del Tigray National Park and Mirador Rio Azur National Park.
To tackle this pressing concern, strategic installations of artificial waterfall holes have been made throughout the parks.
Constructed from durable materials designed to endure extreme local conditions, these water sources are situated in the most vulnerable wildlife habitats, despite the logistical challenges of accessing remote jungle areas.
Camera traps have captured images of various species using these waterfowl, including tapirs, pumas, jaguars, deer, margays, and snakes.
These findings offer valuable insights into animal behavior under water stress and demonstrate how scientifically-informed conservation efforts can alleviate the impact of climate change on fragile ecosystems.
“During the dry season, many natural water sources completely dry up,” notes Ronnie Garcia Andru, director of the Biology Research Division at the Wildlife Conservation Association’s Guatemala Program.
“This drastically lowers the survival chances for numerous species.”
Initially intended to provide critical relief during periods of drought, monitoring with camera traps has shown that the artificial watering holes are also frequented in the rainy season.
This unexpected trend indicates that not only are some regions experiencing ongoing water shortages, but that these structures are becoming an integral part of the local wildlife’s habitat.
This adaptive maintenance strategy has been developed through collaboration.
“While artificial watering holes are not a permanent fix, they serve as a crucial tool for helping wildlife adapt to increasingly erratic environmental conditions,” Garcia Andru remarked.
“The success of this initiative highlights the significance of collaborative, science-driven approaches in the conservation of the Mayan forests, one of the largest tropical forests in the Americas.”
“As climate patterns continue to evolve, these partnerships will be essential to preserving the remarkable biodiversity of the region for future generations.”
____
This article is derived from a press release provided by the Wildlife Conservation Association.
Improving the quality of the air we breathe is a significant achievement for public health, but paradoxically, it also accelerates global warming. This is highlighted in a recent study published in Communication Earth and the Environment, which connects the recent efforts to clean up air pollution in East Asia to the intensified climate crisis.
In the last 15 years, global warming has surged dramatically, and until now, the reasons behind this surge were unclear to scientists.
Co-author Dr. Robert Allen, a professor of climate studies at the University of California, Riverside, stated:
To address this, a large team of international scientists examined simulations from eight major climate models.
The majority of the accelerated warming seen since 2010 is believed to stem from efforts to reduce air pollution in East Asia.
During this same period, China was implementing a significant air quality policy that led to a reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions by approximately 75%.
Dr. Bjørn Samset, the lead author of the research and a senior researcher at Norway’s International Climate Environmental Studies Centre, explained to BBC Science Focus that pollution has historically been effective in cooling the planet.
“Think back to a day when the air was polluted or hazy,” he mentioned. “Particles in the air block some sunlight from reaching the ground, effectively providing a cooling shade.
“For decades, air pollution has been helping to mitigate some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases.”
Samset elaborated that by eliminating air pollution, as China has done, some of that cooling effect has been lost.
However, simply allowing pollution to persist is not the answer. Allen noted that 2 and methane must both be addressed together.
Before China’s 2010 air quality policy, pollution was a leading cause of premature deaths in the country – Credit: Jack-Enjo Photography via Getty
In addition to cutting greenhouse gases, some scientists have proposed unconventional measures to slow the climate crisis, such as reintroducing artificial pollution into the atmosphere.
Samset explained that this approach “involves releasing particles into the stratosphere or clouds, which can mirror the cooling effects of air pollution without the harmful health impacts.”
To do this, planes could disperse gas from altitudes of 20 km—significantly higher than typical passenger flights.
However, co-author Professor Laura Wilcox, a meteorologist at the University of Reading, advised in BBC Science Focus that such solutions do not resolve the core issues.
“Similar to air pollution, these methods merely mask atmospheric problems without addressing the root causes,” she stated.
“Another viable strategy is to actively remove CO.2,” she added. “This process, known as carbon capture, is already underway but on a limited scale.”
Possible solutions include planting trees and seaweed, developing mechanical trees, and directly capturing CO2 from the air for storage in rock formations.
Nevertheless, the key solution remains to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions primarily by transitioning away from fossil fuels,” said Samset.
read more:
About our experts
Dr. Bjørn Samset is a senior researcher at the Norwegian Centre for International Climate Research. A physicist and science communicator, he possesses extensive expertise in atmospheric science and global climate modeling, focusing on the impacts of air pollution on climate change through climate modeling.
Professor Laura Wilcox is a professor specializing in aerosol climate interactions at the University of Reading, UK. Her research interests encompass the effects of air pollution on climate and the impacts of aviation on the climate.
New research published on Monday indicates that the number of structures in the United States vulnerable to flooding may be greater than previously estimated.
A study, published in the Journal’s Future of Earth, revealed that 43% of North Carolina’s flooded buildings from 1996 to 2020 are outside the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Special Flood Hazard Areas, which FEMA designates as having a 1% chance of flooding in any given year.
Experts and the study’s authors believe these findings may assist more communities in understanding their flood risks and insurance needs. As companies pull back from increasing insurance premiums and insuring homes in certain regions due to more frequent severe weather, obtaining flood insurance is becoming increasingly challenging, leaving property owners more exposed.
According to NBC News, experts stated that having access to reliable data sources could facilitate the creation of nationwide databases like the one outlined in the study.
FEMA’s maps serve as the main reference for identifying flood-prone zones and structures requiring insurance coverage. However, experts argue that this system is outdated and lacks resolution. A 100-year floodplain projection doesn’t fully encompass the areas that could be at risk for flooding, and the authors noted that climate change has compromised the reliability of previously authoritative weather and climate forecasts.
This study enabled researchers to pinpoint specific structures that have experienced multiple flooding incidents by utilizing address-level data. This information could inform property owners on whether to obtain flood insurance, even if they fall outside FEMA’s designated flood hazard zones. In the United States, FEMA reports that 99% of counties have experienced flooding, yet only 4% of homeowners hold flood insurance at least once.
“Detailed information about previously flooded areas can empower individuals to make informed decisions,” expressed Helena Margaret Garcia, the lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program did not respond to requests for comments.
FEMA is currently working on revamping its flood mapping system through the Future of Flood Risk Data initiative, aimed at employing more efficient, accurate, and consistent technology to assess the country’s flood risks comprehensively.
Water markers in Orocoke, North Carolina homes illustrate the increasing severity of flooding between hurricanes over time. Courtesy of Helena Garcia
As global temperatures rise, more intense rainfall events are becoming common since warmer air can hold more moisture. Climate change has also contributed to rising sea levels, increasing vulnerability to flooding even in coastal and some inland areas. Hurricane Helen, the third deadliest hurricane of modern times, inflicted substantial flooding in North Carolina’s mountainous regions. Damage from the storm exceeded a total of $78 billion, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The recent severe rainfall has caused flash floods across many U.S. towns over the last two weeks, most recently impacting towns in New Jersey and New York City. In North Carolina alone, six deaths have been reported, while over 100 fatalities have occurred in Texas. Flash floods have historically accounted for the highest number of storm-related deaths in the U.S., averaging 125 deaths per year over recent decades, according to the National Weather Service.
A North Carolina climate scientist noted that the warm seawater feeding the storm could have been a contributing factor to last week’s Tropical Storm Chantal, which set rainfall and river level records in the state.
With the impacts of climate change, having access to up-to-date maps is essential, experts argue.
In their study, researchers mapped 78 flood events using data from 1996 to 2020 from the National Flood Insurance Program, which allows property owners to purchase insurance for potential flood-related losses. They also incorporated emergency service requests and volunteer-based geographic information obtained from social media, creating what they termed the “first of its kind” database. This historical flood data is often inaccessible to the public, which can hinder homeowners’ awareness of prior flood incidents affecting their properties.
Garcia stated that researchers plan to apply the same methodology from their study to create similar historical maps in various regions across the country, identifying areas previously overlooked concerning flood risk.
The research indicated that out of 90,000 structures, only 20,000 experienced flooding, highlighting a significant number that did not file NFIP claims. The study’s authors are now focused on quantifying the human impact, examining outcomes such as healthcare disruptions resulting from floods and the scale of evacuations caused by repeated flooding, as Garcia explained.
On July 7th, Eastgate Mall’s parking lot in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was inundated following a tropical storm. Courtesy of Antonia Sebastian/Helena Garcia
Antonia Sebastian, an assistant professor in the Department of Geology at UNC-Chapel Hill, noted that the study aspires to establish a “comprehensive record of past floods” by gathering data on relatively minor flood events that impact homeowners yet do not receive widespread media attention.
“Areas that have previously flooded are likely to flood again; it’s only a matter of time,” Sebastian remarked. “These sites are inherently dangerous.”
Chad Belginis, executive director of the Flood Plains Association who was not involved in the study, stated that FEMA’s maps are intended to implement the NFIP by utilizing 100-year flood plains to delineate zones for flood insurance coverage. He emphasized that analyzing historical flood research highlights the necessity for flood insurance in areas beyond the mapped FEMA flood hazard zones.
“FEMA’s flood map serves as a starting point, not an endpoint,” Berginnis clarified. “The maps present one kind of flood risk, but to fully grasp flood risk, it is crucial to seek out historical flood data.”
He mentioned that the database models illustrated in the study could be adopted in various other regions. A community manager indicated that identifying past flood sites could enhance community awareness regarding flood risks.
“When we consider the history of floods, [like those along the Guadalupe River], it emphasizes the dangers that have persisted over time,” they reflected. “I truly believe that these areas should be acknowledged as perilous, yet awareness of the actual flooding risks is often lacking.”
June Choi, a doctoral student in Earth Systems Science at Stanford University and not involved in the study, noted that the finding regarding many flooded buildings existing outside FEMA-designated risky areas likely applies to all states. She highlighted that while new databases might have limitations regarding changing building densities over time, the application of historical records and address-specific data still provides valuable insights for assessing future flood risks.
On Monday, the Trump administration advanced efforts to complicate access to a crucial legally mandated scientific evaluation regarding the risks climate change poses to the nation and its citizens.
Earlier this month, the official government website indicated its authority, stating that the peer-reviewed national climate assessment was moving offline. These platforms provide essential information for state and local governments and the public regarding what to expect from climate change and how to adapt accordingly. At that time, the White House stated that NASA would host the report to comply with the 1990 Act Requiring Reporting.
However, on Monday, NASA declared the cancellation of those plans.
According to NASA, “The USGCRP (the agency that oversaw and utilized the report) fulfills its statutory obligations by presenting the report to Congress. NASA has no legal requirement to host data from GlobalChange.gov,” meaning no coordinated assessments or data from governmental scientific offices will be routed to NASA.
On July 3, NASA released a statement affirming, “All existing reports will be accessible on the NASA website to maintain continuity in reporting.”
“This document was produced for taxpayers and includes vital information necessary for people to protect themselves in changing climates,” said the Chief Scientist of the Nature Reserve, a co-author of several previous national climate assessments.
Copies of past reports remain accessible at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s library, and you can view the latest reports and their interactive atlas here.
John Holden, a former scientific advisor to the Obama White House and a climate scientist, accused the administration of blatant misinformation regarding its intentions to censor or obscure the report.
“This new approach exemplifies a classic misunderstanding characteristic of the Trump administration,” Holden stated. “They initially aim to soothe outrage over the discontinuation of the GlobalChange.gov site and the disappearance of the national climate assessment, only to retract their reassurances without apology two weeks later.”
“They simply do not want the public to have access to detailed and scientifically validated information concerning climate change’s impact on agriculture, forests, fisheries, as well as storms, floods, wildfires, and coastal properties.
Holden emphasized the significance of these reports for state and local authorities and the general public, asserting that they “aid in understanding how climate change is affecting people’s lives, their loved ones, their properties, and their environments.”
“Trump is intentionally keeping people in the dark,” Holden asserted.
The most recent report published in 2023 revealed that climate change is impacting the safety, health, and livelihoods of individuals across the country in various ways, putting them at an increased risk.
Carbon dioxide monitoring at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii may be discontinued due to US budget cuts
noaa
Scientists from various countries are urged to prepare for the potential takeover of the major carbon dioxide monitoring services currently operated by the US, according to climate experts.
The monitoring efforts could be terminated next year if budget cuts proceed, leading to the loss of vital data. “At this moment, no one is stepping forward to say, ‘We can take that responsibility,'” states Pierre Friedlingstein from the University of Exeter, UK. “It’s imperative that we do.”
Friedlingstein leads the Global Carbon Budget, an international initiative focused on accurately assessing carbon emissions and absorption by land and oceans, which is essential for understanding global temperature trends.
This work heavily relies on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), whose budget cuts are proposed by the Trump administration. A 2026 budget document suggests eliminating funding for climate and weather research and decreasing the workforce by over 2,000 employees. Furthermore, it plans to close labs, including the Mauna Loa Observatory, a key CO₂ monitoring site.
“NOAA GML [Global Monitoring Laboratory] is essential for the Greenhouse Gas Program, which supports multiple functions,” says Ralph Keeling from the California Institute of Oceanography.
NOAA directly measures gas levels, including CO2, at various sites and aids in monitoring at additional locations worldwide. According to Friedlingstein, this includes calibrating measurements with samples sent from different areas.
The agency compiles and evaluates global data, leveraging subtle variations in CO2 levels across locations, combined with knowledge of atmospheric circulation, to trace CO2 flows accurately.
“NOAA provides critical baseline data,” Keeling noted. “If NOAA’s efforts cease, our ability to monitor CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions globally will diminish.”
“All of these responsibilities must be assumed by other organizations,” Friedlingstein observes.
However, exchanging the loss of monitoring sites and NOAA records for new data poses challenges. “This is where maintaining long-term consistency becomes crucial,” Keeling explains. “It can’t simply switch from one data set to another; this would compromise the reliability of trend analysis.”
There is particular concern regarding ongoing monitoring at Mauna Loa, which has been conducted since 1957, providing the longest continuous CO₂ record from a single location. NOAA supports the Scripps-led monitoring efforts.
“Without NOAA’s involvement, continuing nearby measurements becomes challenging, although not impossible,” Keeling states.
He also expresses worry about Scripps-led monitoring in Antarctica, which currently depends on NOAA personnel from the US Bureau. The site’s funding, sourced from the National Science Foundation, is also at risk.
“Antarctica represents the most significant long-term station in the Southern Hemisphere. Establishing a reliable long-term global average is just as critical as the Mauna Loa data, particularly for tracking variations between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres through large-scale carbon flows,” says Keeling.
CO₂ levels can also be monitored using certain satellites, which, according to Friedlingstein, measure CO₂ not just at the surface but throughout the entire atmospheric column up to the satellite.
When asked whether there’s a plan to substitute NOAA’s functions, the European Union’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service New Scientist reached out to the European Commission’s Defense Industry and Space Administration (DEFIS). DEFIS did not reply before the deadline for this article.
Reducing emissions and capturing carbon is essential to limit warming
Richard Saker/Alamy
The planet must eliminate hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide to keep global temperature rise under 1.5°C this century. Even the less ambitious 2°C targets seem increasingly unattainable without substantial carbon capture and removal (CDR) technologies and urgent emission reductions.
The contentious role of carbon management technologies in meeting climate objectives has been debated for some time. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a degree of carbon management is “inevitable” for reaching zero emissions required to stabilize global temperatures. However, it stresses that the necessary technologies have yet to be validated at the needed scale and emphasizes the risk of providing justifications for continued emissions.
“There’s an ongoing debate among scientists about whether CDR is essential or fundamentally unfeasible,” says Candelaria Bergero from the University of California, Irvine. “Some argue that CDR is unavoidable,” she adds.
To assess what is at stake, Bergero and her research team simulated the potential for global temperature increases to stay below 2°C while analyzing CO2 management across various emission scenarios aligned with the Paris Agreement targets. These scenarios incorporated both technological CDR methods like direct air capture and nature-based solutions such as tree planting, alongside varying carbon capture applications for emissions from power plants and industrial sources.
They determined that failing to capture or remove CO2 could lead to an additional 0.5°C rise in global average temperature by century’s end. Moreover, half of the carbon management predicted in the scenarios could induce about 0.28°C of warming, making it nearly impossible to restrict temperature increases to 1.5°C, even within frameworks that consider violations of that threshold.
While achieving 2°C warming targets might still be feasible without carbon management, researchers found that drastic emission reductions of 16% annually since 2015 are necessary. Such a rapid decrease appears unlikely given the increasing global emissions over the last decade, according to Bergero.
Furthermore, initiatives for scaling up carbon management aren’t progressing swiftly enough. According to Steve Smith at Oxford University, only 40 million tonnes of CO2 are currently captured and stored globally, and only about 1 million tonnes are removed directly each year.
“Like with other emissions reductions, countries frequently discuss ambitious long-term goals, yet lack immediate measures to implement the billions of tons of reductions necessary for these pathways to succeed,” he states.
The peculiar plants that existed since the dawn of terrestrial animals can process water to remarkable extremes, resembling water from metstones more than typical groundwater. Not only do they play a crucial role in today’s ecosystems, but their fossilized remnants also provide insights into Earth’s ancient climate and hydrological systems during the age of dinosaurs.
Almost every oxygen atom in water contains eight neutrons, though some rare heavy isotopes possess nine or ten neutrons. When water evaporates, lighter isotopes do so more readily than their heavier counterparts, leading to predictable shifts in their ratios. Researchers can utilize this information to trace the origin of a specific water sample, determining whether it originated from groundwater, fog, or the rate at which it traversed through plants and the humidity levels experienced by those plants in the past.
Nevertheless, due to the minimal presence of heavier isotopes, acquiring reliable data on how these ratios fluctuate can be quite challenging, making it hard for scientists to draw definitive conclusions.
During examinations of water samples from desert flora and fauna, Zachary Sharp from the University of New Mexico and his colleagues discovered discrepancies between the observed data and the anticipated outcomes based on laboratory models.
Sharp and his team believe they have addressed the issue through a remarkable plant known as horsetail, which has been on Earth since the Devonian period approximately 400 million years ago and features segmented, hollow stems. “It’s a tall cylinder with countless holes, evenly spaced, a marvel of engineering,” states Sharp. “We couldn’t replicate this design in our lab.”
As water flows through each segment of the horsetail stem, it undergoes a process of repeated distillation. Sharp and his colleagues collected water samples at various points along the smooth idiot stem (Equisetum) cultivated near the Rio Grande in New Mexico.
By the time the water reaches the top of the stem, its isotopic composition markedly differs from other terrestrial waters. “If you encounter this sample, I suspect it originates from metstone, as it doesn’t come from Earth. [The oxygen isotope ratios],” Sharp remarked during a presentation at the Goldschmidt Geochemical Conference in Prague, Czech Republic, on July 7.
These horsetail analyses enable Sharp and his team to ascertain the variations in the water’s isotopic ratios under near-ideal conditions, allowing them to enhance model accuracy with these values.
By reassessing desert plant data with these refined models, previously inexplicable observations suddenly made sense. Sharp posits that these findings could illuminate other challenging observations, especially in arid regions.
Reaching heights of 30 meters, far surpassing today’s descendants, ancient horsetails provide even more extreme isotopic ratios and could serve as a key to understanding ancient water systems and climates, according to Sharp. Small, sand-like grains known as plant stone threads within horsetail stems can endure to the present day and may feature unique isotopic signatures influenced by atmospheric humidity. This factor affects the evaporation rate. “This could serve as a paleofat meter [humidity indicator]—how fascinating,” Sharp concludes.
Firefighter drops water on wildfires near Athens, Greece
Costa Subarutas/Anadoll via Getty Images
The severe heat waves experienced in June and July have resulted in 2,300 fatalities across London and 11 other European cities, nearly tripling the death toll attributed to climate change. While assessing the effects of climate change on heat-related deaths typically takes months, scientists have now devised a rapid method for analysis.
In late June, a series of high-pressure “thermal domes” led to extreme temperatures in Western and Central Europe, reaching around 35°C to 40°C in London. Paris recorded temperatures as high as 46°C, while parts of Spain and Portugal also faced similar conditions. The intense heat caused nuclear reactors to shut down in Switzerland, France, and Italy. In response to worker fatalities caused by the heat, outdoor work was prohibited during peak temperatures.
Researchers at the World Weather Attribution Network utilized weather data to assess how severe the heatwave would have been without climate change, comparing that with observed conditions. They integrated a study from the London Faculty of Hygiene, which illustrated the relationship between daily temperatures and increased death rates in European cities, along with their own findings. This framework was then applied to actual temperatures, calculating the potential fatalities due to climate change during this heat wave.
By estimating the period from June 23 to July 2, the researchers concluded that 2,300 individuals perished due to the heat in cities like Barcelona, Budapest, Frankfurt, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Milan, Paris, Rome, Sassari, and Zagreb. Analysis indicated that even under cooler climate conditions, there would have been approximately 700 deaths. However, climate change raised temperatures by as much as four degrees, contributing to an additional estimated 1,500 fatalities. Heat remains one of the deadliest forms of extreme weather, often exacerbating existing health conditions and going unrecognized on death certificates.
This marks the first study to swiftly quantify climate-related fatalities following a heat wave. Specifically, in London, climate change was responsible for 171 out of 235 heat-related deaths. “For me, [the impact of] climate change feels more tangible,” remarked team member Freedérique Otto from Imperial College London. “It is essential for policymakers to take action.”
“Currently, we’re nearing dangerously high temperatures affecting more people,” stated team member Ben Clark of Imperial College London. Notably, 88% of the fatalities were individuals over 65, the most vulnerable demographic.
Experts suggest that this study might underestimate the death toll, as it relies on data from cooler climates. Christie Ebi from Washington University in Seattle expressed concern over future extreme temperatures, stating, “I am uncertain about what will happen when we reach these extreme levels.”
In response to the rising temperatures, the government has issued more heat wave warnings; however, emergency response plans and infrastructure improvements are still necessary. In Milan, for instance, 499 deaths were reported, exacerbated by high air pollution levels that can worsen with rising temperatures. With 90% of fatalities linked to climate change, Madrid struggles with a lack of green spaces to mitigate urban heat effects.
Additionally, many buildings in London suffer from inadequate ventilation. Currently, measures such as providing drinking water at subway stations and halting non-essential vehicle usage during heat waves are being implemented. Otto emphasizes the importance of public awareness around heat risks, stating, “If you believe you are invincible, you’re not.”
Preliminary assessments indicate that the decrease in clean energy funding in the bill dated July 4 could lead to billions of additional tons of CO2 emissions over the next decade if President Donald Trump, who enacted the law, were to approve it. The US is already falling short of its Paris Agreement commitment to halve emissions by 2030, and this sluggish pace further jeopardizes the nation’s efforts as the world’s second-largest emitter, following China.
“Other nations are reaping the benefits of enhanced investments in clean energy economies, while the US is regressing,” stated David Widowski from the World Resources Institute, an environmental advocacy organization, in a recent statement.
The cleaning method outlined in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” encompasses tax reductions and over $350 million in new military spending.
Republicans in Congress have integrated cuts to clean energy funding alongside significant reductions in affordable healthcare and welfare programs to balance their budget. Over the upcoming years, this law will terminate hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of tax incentives aimed at boosting low-emission energy sources established by the Inflation Reduction Act under the Biden administration.
Researchers at Princeton University are modeling how policy alterations will influence the US energy system and emissions in the coming decade. They discovered that the passage of this law markedly hampered the anticipated decline in US greenhouse gas emissions set forth by Biden’s policies and effectively repealed the Inflation Reduction Act.
With a peak of approximately 6.6 billion tons of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2005, US emissions were projected to decrease by around 17%, reaching an expected decline of about 25% by 2030. The newly implemented law now anticipates a mere 20% reduction for 2030.
A more significant disparity arises in 2035, when anticipated clean energy projects were supposed to be more prevalent. Researchers assert that under Biden’s initiatives, emissions were projected to plummet by 44% from 2005 levels. However, due to the new legislation, reductions will only be around 25%, leading to a disparity of 5 billion tons of CO2 each year.
The delay is likely to generate an excess of approximately 2 billion tons of emissions by 2030, compared to prior pledges made under the Paris Agreement. In 2035, US emissions are projected to be around 2.5 billion tons higher than the trajectory needed to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century.
This bill also revokes this year’s electric vehicle tax credit, which will cease to exist along with renewable energy credits for wind and solar by 2026. The credit for energy efficiency upgrades will also conclude in 2026.
Conversely, tax credits for other low-emission energy sources like nuclear, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy will continue until 2033. The law further preserves support for some innovative technologies favored by the fossil fuel sector, like tax credits for low-emission hydrogen production extending into 2028, and credits for capturing and removing CO2.
Environmental advocates have condemned the bill for its detrimental emissions implications, viewing it as counterproductive to the Trump administration’s agenda which aimed to reduce energy costs and advance American manufacturing.
“We urgently require cleaner and more affordable energy, but this legislation will impede the resurgence of American clean energy production and send valuable domestic manufacturing jobs overseas,” remarked Manish Bapna, from the Council for Defense of Natural Resources, a US-based advocacy group, in a statement.
Incorporating sunlight-reflecting particles into the atmosphere may help mitigate climate change
Alexnako/Shutterstock
Continuing to emit carbon dioxide poses significant threats, including the risk of triggering tipping points that can lead to major disruptions such as the shutdown of critical ocean currents. Current modeling indicates that injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight could mitigate this risk, though the effectiveness diminishes significantly if it is initiated much later, such as in 2080.
“My conclusion is that if we are genuinely committed to preventing climate change, we must take solar radiation management seriously. This includes exploring its potential advantages and drawbacks,” declared Claudia Winners from Utrecht University in the Netherlands.
A tipping point signifies changes that are irreversible for centuries, including the slowing or stopping of critical marine currents that distribute immense amounts of heat, impacting the global climate.
One such current is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which transfers heat from the tropics to Europe. A collapse of this system could instigate rapid sea level rises in North America, severe temperature decreases in Northern Europe, and significant disruptions to the Asian monsoon.
Stratospheric aerosol injection represents a proposed geoengineering method that involves the dispersal of sun-reflective particles in the upper atmosphere via airplanes, balloons, or rockets.
According to the model employed by Winners’ team, the strength of AMOC could decrease by over 50% in the coming century under a worst-case emissions scenario. However, utilizing stratospheric aerosol injections to maintain global temperatures around 1.5°C could significantly mitigate current weakening, as Winners explained at the Exeter Climate Conference held in the UK last week.
Indeed, AMOC would not dip below this scenario under aggressive emissions reductions without geoengineering. “So, for at least the next 80 years, the effectiveness of stratospheric aerosol injections is higher than the mitigation from greenhouse gases,” Winners stated.
However, the model indicates that AMOC would fail to recover if aerosol injections are delayed until 2080, especially if they are employed to bring global temperatures back above 1.5°C after an overshoot, as suggested by the model.
The team also examined subpolar gyres in the North Atlantic, a circular current linked to AMOC that circulates around areas where cold, saline water sinks. If this sinking process halts because the oceans become fresher and warmer, it will significantly affect the climate in Europe.
In a worst-case scenario, the model predicts that sinking will cease and that commencing stratospheric aerosol injections in 2080 would not reactive the process. However, if injections start now, subsidence could be preserved in two out of the three crucial regions.
Nevertheless, these findings necessitate validation through numerous studies examining more realistic emission scenarios, as there are potential risks involved, according to Winners. “You can really mess it up too,” she cautioned.
For successful geoengineering, sustained global cooperation over centuries will be paramount. “You might say this is the largest governance challenge humanity has ever faced,” articulated ethicist Stephen Gardiner during another session at the conference from Washington University in Seattle.
For instance, if stratospheric aerosol injections are only conducted in one hemisphere without a global consensus, Winners warns that it could alter tropical rainfall patterns worldwide.
In a subsequent presentation, Jim Heywood from the University of Exeter discussed another geoengineering method, known as marine cloud brightening, which demonstrated that localized interventions could potentially incite global climatic changes.
With the risks now understood, they can be circumvented, said Haywood. “It’s merely a shift in strategy.” Yet, many researchers remain skeptical about the feasibility of managing geoengineering risks.
“Solar radiation management sounds entirely manageable. Shouldn’t we refer to it as solar radiation interference?” Stephen Rahmstorf questioned Winners after her presentation at the University of Potsdam in Germany.
There is also a concern that geoengineering could be perceived as an alternative to emission reductions. “We are not addressing the root causes of climate change,” stated Winners. “It’s merely a symptom management strategy; however, if the symptoms deteriorate excessively, it may complement a true solution.”
Due to these concerns, some climate scientists oppose even investigating the potential risks and advantages of geoengineering. The topic has become so contentious that participants at at least one meeting opted out of a session focused on it.
Winners is not the first to assert that geoengineering might need to commence immediately to avert tipping points. Last year, two independent teams concluded that solar radiation management could prevent the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, another significant tipping point.
“It stands to reason that delaying increases the risk of irreversible changes,” Winners mentioned to New Scientist following her presentation. “I believe that’s quite clear.”
Fig trees may excel at reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
Raimund Link/Mauritius Images Gmbh/Alamy
Certain fig trees have the ability to transform significant quantities of carbon dioxide into solid forms, allowing carbon to remain in the soil even after the tree has perished. This indicates that fig trees used for timber or fruit cultivation could offer additional environmental benefits through this carbon sequestration process.
While all trees generally utilize carbon dioxide from the air, most of it is converted into structural molecules such as cellulose. However, some tree species also synthesize a crystalline substance known as calcium oxalate, and the bacteria within the trees and soil can convert it to calcium carbonate, a primary component of rocks like limestone and chalk.
Mineral carbon can remain in the soil significantly longer than organic matter derived from wood. Trees that store carbon in this manner include iron syrup (Milisia Excelsa), which is found in tropical Africa and is valued for its wood yet does not yield edible fruit.
Recently, Mike Rory from the University of Zurich and his team discovered that three fig species indigenous to Samburu County, Kenya, can also produce calcium carbonate through their own processes.
“Most trees generate calcium carbonate within the soil,” Laurie explains. “We [also] observe that high concentrations can transform the entire root structure into calcium carbonate in the soil, which is a remarkable finding.”
The research team initially identified the calcium carbonate-generating fig species by using a weak hydrochloric acid solution to detect its release from calcium carbonate. Subsequently, they could confirm the presence of calcium carbonate in the surrounding soil and analyze wood samples to pinpoint where calcium carbonate was being generated.
“What genuinely astonished me was how deep I was digging for [calcium carbonate],” Laurie remarked, as he presented his findings at the Goldschmidt conference in Prague, Czech Republic, this week.
Further investigations are needed to estimate the total carbon storage of these trees, the resilience of water in various climates, and the water requirement. Nevertheless, if fig trees can be integrated into future planting initiatives, they could serve as both a source of nourishment and a carbon sink, according to Laurie.
A lifeline has been extended to the residents of Tuvalu, a low-lying Pacific nation grappling with the impacts of rising sea levels. Each year, Australia permits 280 Tuvaluan individuals to reside there. This agreement anticipates a relocation of the entire population within the next few decades.
The Australian Tuvalu Farapili Union, regarded as the world’s first climate migration agreement, also allocates funds for adaptation to aid those who are lagging behind.
Could this serve as a prototype for managing climate migration gracefully before calamities ensue? However, the situation is far from ideal. In order to secure this deal, Tuvalu had to concede to Australia having a voice in future security and defense matters. Few nations may find such terms acceptable.
Moreover, Tuvalu’s population is minuscule. In a country like Australia, which has 28 million residents, accepting around 10,000 climate migrants is relatively insignificant. It’s estimated that between 25 million and 1 billion people could face forced displacement by 2050 due to climate change and other environmental pressures. Where will they go?
Environmental factors could force 1 billion people to move by 2050
Many assert that wealthy nations, historically the largest emitters of carbon dioxide contributing to global warming, have a moral duty to assist those affected by climate change. However, discussions on these matters have yet to translate into the legal recognition or acceptance of forced climate migration. In fact, many high-income nations seem increasingly resistant to various forms of immigration.
There have been some progressions in creating funds for “loss and damage” to aid affected countries dealing with the aftermath of global warming. This could potentially curtail the necessity for future climate migration, yet the promised financial support to date is only a fraction of what is essential.
The foremost action that any nation should undertake is to limit future warming through emission reductions, but global emissions continue to rise. Regrettably, the Farapili Union symbolizes a decline into the ocean, not a turnaround.
What does it mean to lose your home because of climate change? About 10,000 residents of Tuvalu will soon find out.
With an average elevation of less than 3 meters, Tuvalu is on the brink of becoming uninhabitable due to floods, storm surges, and erosion. By 2100, a predicted rise in sea levels of 72 centimeters could result in one-third of the Coral Atoll Archipelago being submerged annually.
Yet, there are escape options for the people of Tuvalu. In late 2023, the Australian government revealed plans for the world’s first organized migration program.
Under the Australian-Tuvalu-Falapilli Union Treaty, 280 Tuvaluans will be granted residency in Australia each year through a lottery system. The inaugural lottery opened on June 16 and received applications from 3,125 citizens—nearly a third of Tuvalu’s population. Registration for this year’s lottery closes on July 18.
In a statement to New Scientist, the Australian government acknowledged the “devastating effects of climate change, especially in the Pacific, which faces challenges related to climate, security, and wellbeing.”
“This is the first agreement of its kind globally, offering a dignified migration pathway as climate conditions worsen,” the government commented.
Successful lottery applicants will learn their results by the end of July, with the first migrants likely to arrive in Australia by year-end.
Bateteba Aselu, a PhD student at the University of Melbourne, examines the climate challenges facing her people. On a student visa in Australia, Aselu is considering applying for the lottery to join her husband, while her son, a recent high school graduate, has already submitted his application.
Aselu notes that the impacts of climate change are visible, as the freshwater aquifers critical for agriculture and drinking water are becoming saline due to rising sea levels. This forces residents to uproot crops in an attempt to mitigate saltwater intrusion.
Stephen Howes from the Australian National University in Canberra describes the new visa as “very progressive,” providing successful applicants access to nearly all Australian health and welfare benefits without discrimination based on chronic health conditions, disabilities, age, or other factors.
While ostensibly aimed at aiding Tuvalu in the face of a climate crisis, Howes asserts that Australia’s initiative also serves to counteract China’s influence in the Pacific. The treaty outlines that Australia and Tuvalu “must collaborate on security and defense matters pertaining to the island nations and external countries.”
“I view it as a security transition agreement,” Howes explains. “Climate change serves as a backdrop, but the arrangement essentially provides Australia with enhanced security cooperation in return for offering Tuvalu a unique migration pathway.”
Tuvaluans engaging in traditional fishing
Mick Tsikas/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
Jane McAdam at the University of New South Wales in Sydney reports varied perspectives on the future among Tuvaluans. Some believe the island will soon be submerged, while others hold hope. She notes that elderly residents express a desire to remain there until their last days.
However, McAdam considers the new migration program to be a “fair and constructive” initiative. A key feature is that once Tuvaluans secure a visa, they can return home whenever they wish or even live there until conditions become unbearable.
It’s “like having an oxygen mask on an airplane,” McAdam adds. “Ideally, you won’t need it, but you’ll be grateful it exists.”
Wesley Morgan, also at the University of New South Wales, remarked that, should conditions worsen, Tuvaluans face limited escape routes. This agreement could pave the way for similar opportunities for other at-risk nations like Kiribati.
“This could set a precedent as the first instance where migration pathways are explicitly linked to climate change and rising sea levels,” Morgan states. “Given these unique circumstances, Australia might explore comparable arrangements with Kiribati in the future.”
A remaining concern for the Tuvaluan population is how they will navigate their identity and sovereignty once they leave the island. Will they be considered a Tuvaluan diaspora or a nation in climate exile?
“If you had to leave your childhood home due to circumstances beyond your control, how would it feel?” Aselu asks. “Would you feel lost? Absolutely. It’s that sentiment of losing a cherished place that defines who you are, regardless of where you are in the world.”
“You grow up there; your history resides there. It’s where your identity is rooted, no matter where you go afterwards.”
For many years, climate scientists and advocates have held onto a sense of optimism. They believe that once the impacts of global warming become undeniable, both individuals and governments will take significant action. The hope is that a major disaster—whether it be a fierce hurricane, extreme heat, or widespread flooding—will force a collective recognition of the gravity of the issue and lead to meaningful change. However, despite the increasing frequency of such disasters, climate change continues to rank low on voters’ agendas, and effective policy responses remain elusive.
This widespread inaction is often attributed to various political or structural barriers. Yet, decades of psychological studies indicate that more profound factors may be at play. The human brain often fails to recognize gradual changes.
Many areas are experiencing severe climate-related issues, but for the majority of the world, the changes manifest as slow and subtle shifts in daily weather.
This gradual nature of change presents challenges. People primarily assess climate issues based on personal experiences: there’s a heightened concern for an unusually hot day than when the weather feels typical. However, as conditions quietly worsen, the perception of “normalcy” shifts. This is often referred to as the boiling frog effect, where subtle and gradual changes fail to trigger alarm bells, leading to a state of indifference: akin to a frog in a pot of water that is gradually heated.
In 2020, we researched climate impacts in Princeton, New Jersey. This area is not burdened by wildfires or droughts, but it has seen a loss of something significant: winter ice skating. For many years, Carnegie Lake would freeze enough for skating, but now it seldom does.
Conversations with long-time residents and a review of local newspaper archives revealed a marked decline in ice skating on the lake over the last century, evoking a sense of loss. This disruption to winter traditions made Princeton’s experience with climate change feel more immediate, tangible, and personal.
We then posed the question: could binary climate indicators—such as “Lake Frozen” vs. “Lake Not Frozen”—serve as more effective alerts than graphs depicting gradual temperature increases?
I explored this concept through a series of experiments. Participants were presented with one of two graphs. One illustrated rising winter temperatures in a fictional town, while the other depicted whether the lake froze each year. Notably, both graphs represented the same underlying climate trends, but reactions varied significantly.
Those who viewed the binary “freeze or not” graphs consistently acknowledged that climate change had a more substantial impact compared to those who saw the temperature graphs. Follow-up studies analyzing data from North American and European lakes corroborated these findings. When climate impacts were communicated in stark terms, individuals responded more seriously.
What motivated this difference? We discovered that binary data creates an impression of sudden shifts. When people observed a series of winters where the lake froze juxtaposed with years it didn’t, they perceived a distinct “before” and “after,” despite the gradual nature of change.
Climate change transcends mere physical challenges; it also encompasses psychological dimensions. As long as we convey it in ways that resonate, we risk desensitizing our warning signals until it’s too late.
We encourage policymakers, journalists, and educators to leverage these insights. Highlighting specific losses that resonate—such as winters without ice skating, drought-damaged harvests, and summers plagued by wildfires—can be impactful. Utilize visuals that contrast “what we had” with “what we’ve lost.”
Allow people to witness the changes—it’s not merely about the slope of the line.
Grace Lew is affiliated with Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania, while Lachitt Dubay is affiliated with UCLA.
A recent study by paleontologists integrated data on the ancient climate of a specific region with fossil distribution information regarding Triassic eye pteraurauromorphs (pterosaurs + lagerpetids).
Foffa et al. Lagerpetids, alongside overall pterygoid morphospace, likely thrived in southwestern Pangaea (i.e. modern-day South America), indicating that pterosaurs may have originated at lower latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Image credit: James Kuether.
“Pterosaurs were the first vertebrates to evolve powered flight more than 60 million years ago—the oldest known birds,” stated Davide Foffa, a paleontologist from the University of Birmingham.
“Nevertheless, our comprehension of early pterosaur evolution is constrained by significant temporal and anatomical gaps separating these highly adapted flying reptiles from their closest terrestrial relatives.”
“The fossil records for pterosaurs and their related species remain incomplete, and fundamental aspects of early evolution, including timing, domains of existence, initial radiation, and the ecological context of paleontology, are not well understood compared to other contemporary groups such as dinosaurs.”
The researchers concentrated on the distribution of two closely related groups: Pterosaurs and Lagerpetids.
“Lagerpetids existed roughly 240 million years ago as a group of agile reptiles that lived in smaller land areas and among trees,” they noted.
“These small terrestrial reptiles are now recognized as the closest relatives to pterosaurs, and this study shows they endured a wider range of climatic conditions than their aerial counterparts, including the arid landscapes of ancient Pangaea.”
“This adaptability resulted in a broader distribution of this group.”
“Conversely, pterosaurs seemed to be restricted to humid environments found in limited regions of the ancient world, as evidenced by fossils discovered in modern-day Italy, Austria, and the southwestern United States.
During the late Triassic period, global climatic conditions began to change, with an increase in warm and humid environments outside the equatorial region.
This shift provided an opportunity for flying reptiles to expand across the globe, including present-day high-latitude areas such as Greenland and South America.
“While dinosaurs roamed the Earth, I find it fascinating to envision that these formidable reptiles ruled the skies during that era,” remarked Dr. Foffa.
“However, the origins of pterosaurs remain cloaked in mystery. Our research contributes new insights into this puzzle, proposing that early evolution among groups was likely influenced by shifting climates and environments during the Triassic.”
“Climate change significantly affects biodiversity, both today and throughout geological history,” stated Dr. Emma Dunn, a paleontologist at Friedrich Alexander Universitat Erlangen Nurnberg.
“Recent advancements in modeling techniques have enabled paleontologists to better understand how climate change has shaped the biodiversity of significant fossil groups like pterosaurs in just the past few years.”
“The combination of ecological models and fossil data is emphasized by Dr. Alessandro Chiarenza, paleontologist at University College London, who noted:
“Lagerpetids flourished as generalists, while pterosaurs, initially constrained to a humid tropical niche with possibly limited flight capabilities, occupied equatorial territories.”
“As the climate transformed and forest corridors emerged, their wings propelled them to every corner of the planet, ultimately allowing them to survive one of Earth’s greatest extinctions.”
“What started as a tale of lost fossils is evolving into a paradigmatic example of how paleoclimate, past climate, and evolutionary innovations intertwine, illuminating the complex history that has fascinated paleontologists for over two centuries.”
Study published in the journal Natural Ecology and Evolution.
____
D. Foffa et al. Paleobiogeography of climate drivers and lagerpetids and early pterosaurs. Nat Ecol Evol published online on June 18th, 2025. doi:10.1038/s41559-025-02767-8
Climate change will lessen the availability of most staple crops, including corn
Jon Rehg/Shutterstock
Despite farmers’ best efforts to adapt, increasing global temperatures have the potential to significantly impact the world’s essential crops. Comprehensive analysis indicates that by the century’s end, for every degree of warming, global food supply may drop by nearly 121 kcal per person per day.
In a 3°C warming scenario—aligned with current trends—”It might mean skipping breakfast for everyone,” notes Andrew Hartgren from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Hartgren and his team gathered data on the yields of six major staple crops globally, which account for over two-thirds of the world’s calories. “This represents one of the largest datasets currently available for high-resolution crop yields,” he states. They also incorporated local weather information from 54 different countries.
The researchers utilized this data to forecast how various crops would respond to climate changes and how farmers might adapt. “We examined historical data on how farmers have reacted to weather fluctuations,” Hartgren explains. This approach enabled the team to assess how different agricultural strategies might mitigate losses, like crop variety adjustments, enhancing irrigation, or increasing fertilizer use.
Except for rice, which thrives under warmer nighttime conditions, higher temperatures generally lead to considerable yield reductions. For instance, global corn yields are anticipated to decline by about 12% to 28% by the century’s end, contingent upon whether greenhouse gas emissions are moderate or extremely high compared to projections without climate change.
These statistics illustrate how farmers adjust to rising temperatures and the implications of potentially beneficial effects of climate change, like elevated carbon dioxide levels fertilizing crops. Both factors are significant. Without adjustments, for example, crop losses could reach a third by the century’s end under extreme warming scenarios, yet this won’t mitigate the majority of losses. “In a warmer future, the corn belt will still be relevant,” Hartgren asserts.
Wolfram Schlenker of Harvard University emphasizes that agricultural adaptations seldom completely offset crop losses due to climate change, with previous studies from specific regions suggesting similar conclusions. “The major strength of their research is its global perspective, compiling data from numerous countries,” he remarks.
The global approach reveals some fascinating patterns. For example, researchers observed that the most significant projected crop losses are not concentrated in low-income nations but rather in comparatively affluent agricultural hubs like the Midwest and Europe. “They aren’t inherently better suited than poorer countries,” Schlenker notes.
Michael Roberts from the University of Hawaii Manoa states that these findings align with the conclusions of a smaller study. However, he highlights considerable uncertainties, such as the extent of future climate change and the complexities of global food systems’ responses.
“What’s alarming is our lack of knowledge,” Roberts adds. “There’s significant uncertainty, much of which is negative. Losses could range from non-existent to catastrophic, potentially causing massive famines. It’s a sobering thought for many.”
Nestled in a quieter street of vibrant central London, the headquarters of a significant yet under-the-radar climate organization awaits your discovery.
The Quadrature Climate Foundation (QCF) annually allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to some of the most impactful campaign groups and scientific institutions, at the forefront of research and advocacy in green transitions. It funds initiatives such as anti-methane vaccines for livestock, sustainable aviation fuel, geothermal energy, and carbon capture technologies.
As research budgets tighten in universities and across the UK, organizations like QCF step in to facilitate the shift toward net-zero emissions.
Established in 2019 as a charitable arm of the Four Seasons hedge fund, the QCF empowers founders Greg Skinner and Sunil Setya to tackle climate challenges. Recently recognized in the Sunday Times Rich List for their philanthropic efforts, they contributed over $6.7 million to climate-related initiatives last week through the foundation. In total, QCF has dispersed over $1 billion to climate interventions, ranking it as one of the largest and most influential climate charities globally.
Who decides which research projects to back, what causes to prioritize, and the strategic direction to pursue? Greg de Temmerman, a former nuclear physicist and the QCF’s Chief Science Officer, is tasked with evaluating proposals to identify the most promising initiatives.
Madeleine Cuff: Could you explain your transition from a nuclear fusion focus to climate strategy?
Greg de Temmerman: I worked on the ITER project [an international fusion experiment based in France] for seven years, the largest scientific endeavor on Earth. Throughout this period, I engaged in outreach efforts to demystify fusion. Unfortunately, the project faced mounting delays.
I was frequently interacting with decision-makers, which illuminated the divide between scientific research and policy-making. Consequently, I chose to exit fusion in 2020 and co-founded a think tank with a Parisian entrepreneur, aiming to bridge the gap between policymakers and early-stage technology. In 2023, I joined the Quadrature Climate Foundation where I continue this mission, but now with greater resources to effect change.
Controversial geoengineering initiatives, like this insulation project in Switzerland, are under scrutiny
Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images
Explain your current role at QCF.
QCF’s mission is to promote projects and partnerships that can drive global change. Our portfolio includes support for early-stage technologies, advocacy, campaigns, technical work, capacity building, and more. It’s crucial to identify the problem at hand.
For instance, one might say, “I want to boost renewable energy,” but what obstacles stand in the way? Is it financial resources? Infrastructure issues? I was brought on board to ask these critical questions and ensure we pursue the right solutions.
How does charitable funding differ from traditional investments and government support?
Charitable funding doesn’t seek financial returns, allowing for greater risk-taking than typical investments. Moreover, we can move more swiftly than government entities. Essentially, we both catalyze the net-zero movement and act as a catalyst for other funding sources.
With an impressive annual budget reaching around $325 million in 2025, do you face significant influences?
We are notable players in climate finance but still small in comparison to what’s needed for a successful climate transition. While it feels empowering to operate at this scale, our budget pales in comparison to the global demands of climate mitigation.
You support various initiatives, from studying climate change impacts to advocating for clean tech entrepreneurship. Can you share a particular success?
We were among the first substantial funders of permanent carbon removal techniques. Our initiatives aimed to develop a compliance market while emphasizing accountability measures. This became critical following discussions ignited by the last international climate change report, which highlighted the necessity for negative emissions, leading to serious dialogue on the subject.
Last year, you introduced a new strategy, shifting focus towards adaptation and resilience in climate change. What prompted this shift?
The climate crisis is accelerating, with more extreme weather events becoming a norm. Adaptation is essential to any decarbonization efforts. This new strategy seeks to unify our initiatives under a coherent vision, aligning with what our founders find most impactful.
As part of the new strategy, you’ll be supporting climate intervention research, particularly geoengineering, which can be contentious. What motivates this funding?
Indeed, these scientific endeavors should predominantly come from public funding, which has been lacking for various reasons. Thus, we decided to support this research to ensure that vital questions are being explored.
This sector raises major ethical concerns. How can you justify financial support for it?
I don’t have a definitive stance on the ethics of geoengineering. Currently, it’s a complex arena that necessitates rigorous understanding, and I don’t endorse any immediate applications of geoengineering techniques.
Our intent is to spark discussions about geoengineering, especially as new startups emerge in this field, despite existing research lagging behind.
Is your support strictly for foundational research, or do you engage with field trials as well?
Much of our backing centers around fundamental climate science. One pressing issue in geoengineering is understanding cloud formation, which parallels many critical challenges in climate science. We funded a minimal outdoor experiment in the U.S. that was suspended after a few weeks due to public backlash. We prefer to remain cautious and utilize robust climate models to predict the impacts of geoengineering. Comprehensive observational capabilities are essential for effective outdoor trials, and we believe there remains much work in foundational climate science.
In the current political climate, with leaders like former President Trump rolling back climate policies, how do you navigate these headwinds?
Transition involves disruption; established systems resist change while new ones emerge, and this tension can be challenging. It’s essential to foster understanding of this dynamic and communicate the complexities inherent to the transition process.
The upcoming years may be tough. Addressing climate issues has become increasingly challenging. In the UK, rising electricity costs compound the disconnect between the public’s perception of renewable energy benefits and their current bills, which can lead to skepticism.
However, there’s compelling motivation to move away from fossil fuels, independent of climate beliefs. Oil and gas markets are notoriously unstable, making diversification essential for resilience. The key is to demonstrate that energy transitions benefit everyone, regardless of their views on climate action.
Oil refinery at sunset in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Panoramic Images/Alamy
Climate disinformation and malign players pose challenges. What can be done to combat this?
Attacks on climate science persist, but the overwhelming evidence supports the scientific consensus. While some may cling to flat Earth beliefs, the facts remain clear. Increasingly, the discourse pivots to contesting solutions rather than the scientific basis itself. For instance, searching “Electric Car” on YouTube reveals numerous videos disputing their efficacy. These discussions, while interesting, rely heavily on data and understanding.
What exciting prospects lie ahead for QCF in the coming year?
To transform industries, we must bring down energy costs, and there are opportunities to achieve that. Furthermore, tackling industrial emissions—once deemed difficult—is now achievable with ready solutions. It’s an exhilarating time as skeptics claimed decarbonizing sectors like steel was impossible. But now, we know we can do it.
As you’ve identified as a major player, how do you cope with the responsibility of influencing climate transition?
It’s about recognizing our role within the broader system and acknowledging our limitations. It’s vital to approach initiatives with the belief that we can unlock new possibilities, while remaining open to the reality that we may not always be correct.
How do you maintain optimism in a time where climate progress appears stagnant?
I often say my optimism shines on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; I’m more pessimistic on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, with Sundays reserved for reflection.
Nature despises a vacuum, and geopolitical vacuums are no exception. As Donald Trump sets the stage to confront global warming, he is poised for the climate leadership that awaits. If Chinese President Xi Jinping aims to claim that mantle, it’s within his reach.
China’s climate credentials are a mixed bag. Since 2006, it has held the title of the largest greenhouse gas emitter due to rapid industrialization. Conversely, it has emerged as a leading manufacturer of solar panels globally.
Xi himself appears to be distancing from the international climate arena. He has not participated in any climate summits since Paris in 2015, when China committed to keeping global warming below 1.5°C. While numerous countries interpret this as an obligation to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, China has pledged to reach carbon neutrality by 2060—a less ambitious target.
However, this landscape may be changing. As highlighted on page 10, China’s emissions seem to have peaked. Xi is also set to attend COP30 in Belem, Brazil this November. With a significant climate initiative emerging from China, what does this mean?
Due to a massive climate intervention from China, the work is falling into place, what is that?
The most probable announcement is the commitment to a provisional target by 2040, halfway to 2060. Yet, if Xi aspires to lead the global climate movement, he should set a more ambitious zero emissions target for 2050. Achieving this would complicate matters for other countries and catalyze advancements in green technology.
Will Xi take that step? Likely not. However, with reports suggesting that COP30 may not meet expectations (see “Does the COP30 Climate Summit already take six months, six months?”), Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva may help persuade Xi, as he has previously indicated a desire to maintain a more robust relationship with China. Should China assume the climate leadership role, Brazil stands to benefit significantly.
The aim of restricting global warming to below 1.5°C faces challenges as recent climate data suggests global temperatures remain alarmingly high, with 2025 tracking closely to 2024’s record heat.
April 2025 marked the second hottest April on record, losing out only to April 2024, as per reports from the European Union’s Copernicus climate service and the nonprofit Berkeley Earth. That month, global temperatures consistently exceeded 1.51°C above pre-industrial levels, marking 22 consecutive months over this critical threshold. Copernicus reports. The average temperature for April 2025 remained cooler than April 2024, still surpassing pre-industrial levels by 1.49°C.
This unrelenting warmth has astounded scientists. The year 2024 was deemed the hottest on record, with an average global temperature exceeding 1.55°C above the pre-industrial average. It marked a significant event as it was the first calendar year to surpass the 1.5°C threshold. Under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, nations pledged to limit global temperature increases to well below 2°C, ideally to 1.5°C.
Scientists had anticipated that the cooling effects of the La Niña weather pattern would emerge in January, offering some relief. However, global temperatures have remained persistently elevated, raising concerns about 2025 possibly following 2024 in exceeding the critical 1.5°C marker. “The recent La Niña event hasn’t provided the expected cooling relief,” stated Robert Rohde from Berkeley Earth during a briefing on May 13.
Data from Berkeley Earth suggests an 18% likelihood that 2025 will be the hottest year recorded, and a 53% chance of it being the second hottest. Rohde estimates a 52% probability of having an average temperature exceeding 1.5°C this year.
The trajectory of global temperatures for the remainder of the year relies heavily on whether new El Niño or La Niña patterns emerge in the Pacific, according to Rohde.
The ongoing hot streak has dashed hopes of capping global temperatures at the 1.5°C Paris target. Although targets are assessed over a 20-year average, researchers are increasingly worried that recent high-temperature streaks have led to a breach of this threshold. “It’s becoming inevitable that we’ll see a long-term average above 1.5°C in the next decade,” Rohde cautioned.
Last year, scientists warned that exceeding 1.5°C would result in a three-year period of significant temperature rise, effectively compromising the goals of the Paris Agreement. Similarly, a paper released earlier this year indicated that 12 consecutive months above 1.5°C have already signaled a long-term warming trend at that level.
Richard Allan from the University of Reading expressed surprise at the durability of the warmth. Findings from the past two years and new record temperatures have fundamentally altered the scientific perspective on the feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5°C. “Without substantial mitigation efforts or extraordinary volcanic events in the next 20 years, we expect we will be above the 1.5°C threshold,” he remarked.
Nevertheless, he maintains that the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to below 2°C remains attainable. “It is crucial to strive for temperatures beneath that threshold,” he emphasized.
According to court documents submitted on Monday in a deletion lawsuit, the Agriculture Department plans to reinstate climate change information that was removed from its website when President Trump took office.
The omitted information encompassed pages detailing federal funding and loans, forest conservation, and rural clean energy initiatives. This also included sections from the U.S. Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Services, featuring climate risk viewers, including comprehensive maps that illustrate how climate change impacts national forests and grasslands.
The February lawsuit indicated that farmers’ access to pivotal information was hindered, affecting their ability to make timely decisions amid business risks tied to climate change, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires.
The lawsuit was filed by the Organic Farming Association in Northeast New York alongside two environmental organizations, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group.
The plaintiffs sought a court mandate requiring the department to restore the deleted pages. On Monday, the government affirmed that this restoration would be compulsory.
Jay Clayton, a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, informed Judge Margaret M. Garnett that he represents the agricultural division in this suit and has commenced the process of restoring the pages and interactive tools highlighted in the complaint. He indicated that the department “anticipates completing the restoration process significantly in about two weeks.”
Clayton requested a postponement of the hearing set for May 21, suggesting a report on the restoration progress be submitted in three weeks, and mentioned he is working on determining “the appropriate next steps in this lawsuit.”
“The USDA is pleased to recognize that the unlawful removal of climate change-related information is detrimental to farmers and communities nationwide,” stated Jeffrey Stein, assistant attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental law nonprofit that represents the plaintiffs, alongside the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
Climate change is already impacting our lives negatively
Ahmad al-Rubaye/AFP via Getty Images
When considering the dangers posed by climate change, floods and violent storms might come to mind, or even unprecedented heat waves. A study conducted in the latter half of 2024 revealed that most Americans view extreme weather as the chief climate threat. Yet, climate change disrupts daily life in many other persistent ways.
“These events significantly impact people’s lives but often don’t make headlines,” states Jennifer Carman from Yale University.
These more subtle consequences of climate change may seem trivial compared to disasters, like worse allergies or increased commute times, but they collectively signify major shifts, according to Carman. Understanding these issues is crucial for individuals to brace for climate changes affecting their everyday experiences. Remarkably, around half of Americans report feeling the effects of climate change a decade ago—double the number of those who don’t.
“Not everyone is affected by severe events,” Carman remarks. “However, everyone experiences the impacts of daily life consistently.”
Climate change drives up food prices and more
Elevated temperatures associated with climate change inflate prices. In a study by Fridrikik and her team at the European Central Bank, they identified strong correlations between temperature and numerous global price indices. They discovered that higher average temperatures lead to both inflation and extreme weather, particularly in equatorial regions, with impacts persisting year-round.
They projected that by 2035, this would escalate annual price inflation rates by 0.5% to 1.2% for various goods, depending on global greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture is notably susceptible to weather variations, meaning its price impacts may be about twice as significant. “This unpredictability complicates food production,” Carman notes.
Air conditioning usage is rising and becoming more costly
Increasing temperatures escalate air conditioning expenses. In hotter regions, users will need to operate their air conditioners longer and more frequently. This demand can exceed affordable energy bills.
Individuals in previously temperate areas, such as London or the US’s Pacific Northwest, find themselves needing to install air conditioning for the first time. Globally, soaring cooling expenses negate any reductions in heating costs.
Hot weather disrupts sleep
Even with air conditioning, high nighttime temperatures can hinder sleep quality. Research by Renjie Chen from the University of Hudan, along with colleagues, assessed over 20 million nights of sleep data from hundreds of thousands in China. They found that a 10°C rise in night temperature could raise the likelihood of insufficient sleep by 20%. Under severe emissions scenarios, they estimate that each individual in China might lose about 33 hours of sleep per year by the century’s end.
This isn’t just a localized issue. Research by Kelton Minor from Columbia University showed that elevated nighttime temperatures correlated with reduced sleep across tens of thousands of individuals in 68 countries. Findings suggest higher nighttime temperatures result in decreased sleep—mainly affecting older adults and women in hotter, poorer regions.
Climate change intensifies air pollution
Air pollution poses serious health risks, whether from PM2.5 particles or ozone. Recent research indicates that combining higher temperatures with existing pollutants can exacerbate the harmful effects of air quality, particularly among those who spend extended time outdoors.
Historically, fossil fuel-driven pollution has decreased as power grids have become cleaner, yielding public health benefits. However, as climate change fuels more frequent and severe wildfires, decades of progress may be undone, exposing communities to wildfire smoke. One study forecasts that increased smoke exposure could lead to around 700,000 additional deaths in the U.S. by 2050.
Supporting evidence aligns with anecdotal perceptions; William Andreg from the University of Utah and his team found that the pollen season in North America has lengthened since the 1990s, with overall pollen levels increasing by 21%. The majority of these changes have been attributed to human-induced warming.
Travel delays accumulate, whether long-haul or daily
Climate change is increasingly responsible for weather-related interruptions in transportation systems, leading to billions of wasted hours.
For instance, Valerie Mueller and colleagues from Arizona State University studied the impact of routine coastal flooding on commute times in the eastern U.S. They estimated individuals experience about 23 minutes of delays annually due to these floods, which is double the time recorded 20 years ago. Their analysis revealed these delays stem mainly from rising sea levels rather than extreme storm surges.
While a handful of extra minutes might seem negligible, it accumulates to billions of lost hours overall. Over the coming decades, further sea level rise could escalate delays to hundreds of minutes per person annually.
Weather-induced delays are also increasing in train services and airports. The International Air Transport Association reported that weather-related delays rose from 11% of total delays in 2012 to 30% in 2023. Additionally, even if passengers board their flights, climate change can exacerbate certain turbulence, contributing to rougher flights.
Severe thunderstorms in April resulted in historic downpours and flooding across Arkansas, Kentucky, and other states, exacerbated by climate change.
This information comes from the World Weather Attributes Project, a consortium of scientists studying major weather events in relation to climate change.
From April 3 to April 6, heavy rainfall hit the southeastern U.S., leading to widespread flooding, flood warnings for over 70 million individuals, at least 15 fatalities, the sweeping away of vehicles, and train derailments.
By utilizing climate models alongside historical data, researchers examined storm systems across eight affected states and concluded that the current weather patterns were approximately 9% more intense due to global warming, with a 40% increased likelihood compared to a scenario without such warming.
Ben Clark, a researcher at Imperial College London, stated, “We conclude that the existing 1.3 degrees Celsius of warming has intensified the extreme rainfall leading to flooding in the region. A warmer atmosphere retains more moisture.”
The outcome was severe flooding in Frankfort, Kentucky, along with a rainy day in the Midwest on April 7th. Leandro Lozada/AFP Getty Images file
The 1.3 degrees reference indicates how much warmer the planet has become in Celsius since humanity began releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere post-Industrial Revolution—a conversion of approximately 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Clark noted that the probability estimates from the group are conservative. The researchers identified a unique weather configuration that contributed to the extreme rainfall.
Shell Winkley, a meteorologist with Climate Central, a nonprofit news organization involved in the report, explained that a low-pressure system interacting with a high-pressure ridge caused the thunderstorms to repeatedly affect the same areas in the Southeast and Midwest.
“This front was the route through which these storms moved, and there was also a trigger mechanism. The thunderstorms accumulated rain on already saturated soil,” Winkley noted. “This event is a fascinating intersection of weather and climate change.”
According to Winkley, the National Weather Service issued the third highest weather warning on April 2.
“By the end of the day, the National Weather Service had released 728 separate thunderstorm and tornado warnings from various offices, with numerous locations experiencing extreme rainfall between April 3 and April 6, with some areas seeing up to 16 inches,” Winkley explained.
After a significant storm in Portageville, Missouri on April 7th, vehicles navigate through flooded streets. Scott Olson/Getty Images File
Upon reviewing historical rainfall from April, researchers indicated that similar storm systems are anticipated every century in the current warm climate.
Gerald Brotzge, a Kentucky climatologist and professor at the University of Kentucky Western University, initially approached such studies with skepticism, particularly those linking large-scale flooding to climate change without accounting for unique weather setups. However, he found this study credible.
Brotzge remarked, “It appears they conducted a thorough analysis. In this instance, a stagnant boundary allowed thunderstorms to constantly form in the same locality—an accurate observation.”
Brotzge noted that Kentucky has warmed by nearly 1.8 degrees Celsius (approximately 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit) over the last 130 years and has been experiencing increased rainfall.
“Our annual rainfall has risen by about 10%,” Brotzge stated. “Half of our ten wettest years have occurred since 2011, with 2011 being the wettest and 2018 as the second wettest.”
The World Weather Attribution is a team of scientists who quickly assess the influence of climate change on extreme weather events. Their methodology has undergone peer review, though some analyses are not immediately reviewed. Previous studies by the group on heatwaves, wildfires, and hurricanes have also faced academic scrutiny.
On Friday, a prominent scientific organization announced its plans to release a pivotal report on climate change for the nation. This endeavor had been sidelined by the Trump administration, which dismissed numerous scientists involved in the effort.
The American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society indicated that authors could opt to publish works initially drafted for evaluation in their respective journals.
Brandon Jones, program director for the National Science Foundation, stated, “It is essential to protect and prepare our community, our neighbors, and our children from the escalating risks associated with climate change. This collaboration opens a vital pathway for researchers to unite and provide the necessary science to address global climate change solutions.”
The National Climate Assessment represents a thorough review of current climate science, examining the impacts of climate change on the nation and outlining potential adaptation and mitigation strategies. Five editions have been published since 2000, with the sixth edition expected to be released in early 2028.
The new initiative will not replace the federal reports required by Congress, according to a statement from the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Association.
The White House has not responded to a request for comment. Following the rejection of the authors of the National Climate Assessment, known as NCA6, the notification they received mentioned that “the scope of the report is currently being reassessed in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990.” This law instituted the US Global Change Research Program in April, subsequently resulting in staff and funding cuts by the administration.
It remains uncertain whether the administration will move forward with a revised assessment, try to bypass Congress and cancel it entirely, or take an alternative approach.
Jason West, an environmental scientist at the University of North Carolina and former lead author on the Air Quality chapter in a past assessment, stated, “This effort cannot substitute for NCA6, which goes through extensive public and government reviews. However, it allows the team of authors who have already started their work the chance to finalize and publish their findings.”
The report’s authors had been preparing a chapter for nearly a year, addressing subjects like climate model updates and urban heat adaptation.
Scientists highlighted the unique breadth, depth, and rigor of national climate assessments, noting that the government’s role in publishing has historically added credibility and reliability to these reports.
Researchers expressed disappointment at the abrupt cancellation of their volunteer positions. For many, the announcement from the Science Association was a positive indication that their work could proceed, just as the authors of the first National Natural Assessment advocated for the publication of their efforts.
Costa Samaras, a civil engineer at Carnegie Mellon University and leader of the Climate Mitigation chapter, remarked via email, “The AGU/AMS initiatives can sustain the momentum of climate science in the wake of recent setbacks. It serves as a reminder that science will persist.”
Last year, Vermont achieved a historic milestone by enacting the nation’s first climate superfund law, aimed at enabling the recovery of funds from fossil fuel companies to manage the escalating expenses associated with climate change.
This depends, however, on whether we can prevail against the mounting legal challenges.
Recently, the Department of Justice initiated a federal lawsuit, with Vermont being one of the states, alongside New York, to adopt the Climate Superfund Act. The lawsuit argues the measure is “a bold effort to seize federal authority” and forces others to subsidize state infrastructure expenditures.
Shortly after, West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCauskey announced he was spearheading another challenge against Vermont’s law, claiming it “encroaches upon American coal, oil, and natural gas producers.”
McCauskey had previously filed a similar lawsuit against New York, seeking $75 billion from oil and gas companies over the next 25 years. On Thursday, he warned that the Vermont version could be “even more perilous” as it lacks a financial cap.
He, along with 23 other attorneys, is joining the lawsuit filed late last year by the American Petroleum Research Institute, an affiliate of the US Chamber of Commerce and the Federal Court of Vermont.
West Virginia is a significant source of natural gas and coal, and the complaint asserts that fossil fuel companies operate legally. It argues that “Vermont enjoys affordable and reliable fuels while simultaneously punishing those who produce such energy.”
The Climate Superfund Act is patterned after the federal Superfund program, which aims to clean up hazardous waste sites. This program has been operational for decades, ensuring that businesses contributing to contamination help finance the cleanup.
The new climate superfund law stems from the understanding that the burning of fossil fuels—which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases—is a primary driver of climate change. Consequently, the law permits states to pursue funding from fossil fuel producers to mitigate the costs of global warming. Similar legislative initiatives are gaining traction in states like California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
Patrick Derprue, an expert in environmental law in Vermont, characterized the Justice Department’s case as “a display of virtue signaling” and anticipates a dismissal. He expects the state will argue that the Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit is premature, given that officials are still determining how the law will be applied and are not directly implicated.
Julie Moore, the secretary of the Vermont Natural Resources Agency, indicated her involvement in both filings and stated her office is reviewing the specifics. She noted that the Justice Department’s actions were “not unforeseen” in light of President Trump’s April 8 executive order, which aims to “protect America’s energy from federal overreach.”
This order explicitly mentions the new laws in Vermont and New York, deeming them threats to national economic and security interests.
Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, who is named in the DOJ lawsuit, stated that the Climate Superfund Act “will ensure that those responsible for the climate crisis contribute to remedying the damages they have inflicted.”
Meghan Greenfield, an environmental attorney with prior experience at the DOJ and the Environmental Protection Agency, now a partner at Jenner & Block, remarked that legal conflicts regarding such new laws are inevitable. Some arguments relevant to these measures are novel and untested, revolving around the concept of “equal sovereignty” between states, which posits that states should be equitably treated by the federal government.
“We are navigating complex legal landscapes, with new types of laws and challenges emerging, making predictions difficult,” she noted.
She also expressed anticipation for further confrontations regarding more conventional state climate regulations, particularly those in New York and California.
Few voters have as much influence over climate change as Australians do.
In terms of per capita greenhouse gas emissions, only the US and Canada are close to Australia. The nation stands as one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels, significantly contributing to global warming by selling vast quantities of natural gas to Asian countries, alongside some of the most polluting fossil fuels.
As national elections approach this Saturday, polls indicate that climate change is not a primary concern for many voters. However, the leading candidates from the Labour Party and the Liberal Party hold starkly different views on climate and energy policies.
At the forefront is the reliance on aging coal plants, which dominate the country’s electricity generation.
“We’ve seen various approaches worldwide,” stated Andrew McIntosh, a professor of environmental law and policy at the Australian National University. “On one hand, there’s a push for expanding renewable energy, while on the other, a conservative coalition advocates for nuclear power.”
Both strategies aim to reduce emissions, according to McIntosh, though many remain puzzled by the nuclear initiative. Nuclear plants can take over a decade to build, while renewable energy solutions can be implemented in just a few months.
“We need to rely on coal for years to come,” he added.
In some ways, analysts compare the polarized situation in Australia to that in the US, where former President Donald J. Trump downplayed climate science, dismissing it as a scam. Matt McDonald, a political scientist specializing in climate matters at the University of Queensland, remarked:
However, instead of heightening Australians’ concerns about climate change, Trump’s criticisms “don’t seem to have generated significant international momentum to address the issue, effectively cooling tensions on both sides,” said Dr. McDonald.
If Australians are feeling pressure, it stems from surging household energy prices. According to Australian energy regulators, average energy costs have risen by approximately 60% over the last decade.
Anthony Albanese, the current Prime Minister and Labour Party leader, has committed to a relatively ambitious renewable energy target, aiming for over 80% generation by 2030.
“Yet,” Dr. MacDonald noted, “we still have a significant reliance on coal.”
Albanese’s main rival, Peter Dutton, heads a coalition that aims to increase domestic gas production for electricity generation. While gas is still a fossil fuel, it is far less polluting than coal. Dutton proposes requiring gas producers to sell portions of their output to Australian electricity grids while expediting approvals for new drilling projects.
Generally, both parties endorse gas development, with Australia being the second-largest gas exporter globally, following the US.
Polling indicates a competitive race, revealing that the Green Party and the so-called Teal Independents strongly advocate for robust climate policies and could play a crucial role in Congress. “If they maintain their current seats, they will be in a position to advocate more strongly for climate action, such as reducing coal exports,” Dr. McDonald said.
A significant question looming globally is whether Australia will host next year’s annual United Nations-sponsored Global Climate Conference, commonly known as COP. Australia is currently vying with Türkiye to secure this event, which comes with notable geopolitical significance and economic advantages, drawing tens of thousands of delegates.
Host countries typically influence the ambition levels of negotiations, and Prime Minister Albanese’s administration has been lobbying for international support for Australia’s bid for over a year. “If they are elected, it’s unlikely to happen under the coalition government,” Dr. McDonald concluded.
Few voters can impact climate change as significantly as Australians.
In terms of per capita greenhouse gas emissions, only the US and Canada closely approach Australia. The nation stands as one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels contributing to global warming, notably sending vast quantities of natural gas to Asian countries alongside some of the most polluting fossil fuels.
As the country prepares for national elections on Saturday, polls indicate that climate change is not a primary concern for many voters. However, the leading candidates from the Labour Party and the Free State Union present starkly different approaches to climate and energy policy.
Central to the discussion is the dependence on the aging coal plants that generate electricity for the country.
“We’ve witnessed a lot of global experiences,” noted Andrew McIntosh, professor of environmental law and policy at Australian National University. “One perspective emphasizes workforce requirements and the need for increasing renewables, while the alternative espouses a conservative coalition favoring nuclear energy.”
Both strategies could lead to reduced emissions, according to McIntosh, though many are puzzled by the nuclear program. Constructing nuclear power plants can take over a decade, whereas renewable energy sources can be implemented within months.
“We need to rely on coal for the foreseeable future,” he added.
In some ways, analysts reflect a polarized debate akin to that in the US, where former President Donald J. Trump dismissed climate science and branded efforts to clean energy as a hoax. Matt McDonald, a political scientist specializing in climate issues at the University of Queensland, stated:
“However, rather than making Australians more apprehensive about climate change, Trump’s rhetoric has not gained significant traction internationally, effectively cooling the debates on both sides,” remarked Dr. McDonald.
For Australians feeling the pressure, it largely stems from rising energy costs for households. Australian energy regulators report that average energy prices have surged by approximately 60% over the past decade.
Incumbent Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who leads the Labour Party, has proposed an ambitious target for renewable energy, aiming for over 80% generation by 2030.
“But,” Dr. McDonald pointed out, “we have substantial coal reserves as well.”
Albanese’s main rival, Peter Dutton, at the helm of a liberal coalition, advocates for increased domestic gas production to support electricity generation. While gas is a fossil fuel, it is considerably less polluting than coal. Dutton proposes that gas producers be mandated to supply a portion of their output to Australian power grids, while also expediting the approval process for new drilling projects.
Generally, both parties are proponents of gas development, with Australia being the world’s second-largest gas exporter after the US.
With polls indicating a tight race, the Green Party and the so-called Teal Independents, both strong advocates for robust climate policies, could potentially influence Congress significantly. “If they retain their seats, they’ll be poised to push harder on climate initiatives—like decreasing coal exports,” Dr. McDonald noted.
An additional point of contention globally is whether Australia will be the host for the upcoming United Nations-sponsored Global Climate Conference next year, commonly referred to as COP. Currently, Australia is vying with Türkiye for the hosting rights, an opportunity carrying geopolitical significance and economic advantages by welcoming tens of thousands of representatives.
Hosting nations often establish the dialogue tone for consultation ambitions, and Prime Minister Albanese’s government has been actively lobbying other countries for over a year to support Australia’s bid. “If the coalition wins, this opportunity will certainly vanish,” Dr. McDonald asserted.
Climate change contributes to events like the Marshall Fire in Colorado, which devastated 1,000 homes in December 2021
Jim West/Alamy
The Trump administration has dismissed nearly 400 researchers involved in the forthcoming US national climate assessment. This action may delay the completion of a critical report detailing the impacts of climate change on the nation.
“The Trump administration has carelessly undermined a vital US climate science report by prematurely discarding its authors without justification or a plan,” said Rachel Cleetus, representing the concerned coalition of scientists.
This move significantly hampers progress on the sixth National Climate Assessment, designed to inform federal and state governments about climate change risks and their implications. A law enacted by Congress in 1990 mandates that these assessments be produced every four years.
Although the next report isn’t due until 2027, extensive work has already begun, and the document may exceed 1,000 pages. The latest review, published in 2023, discussed the increasing difficulty of ensuring safe homes, healthy families, dependable public services, sustainable economies, and thriving ecosystems amidst climate challenges.
In early April, the Trump administration terminated a contract with a consulting firm responsible for coordinating research for upcoming assessments under the US Global Change Research Program. This follows numerous cuts at scientific institutions contributing to these efforts, as well as other actions restricting climate and weather research.
Despite the challenges, the report’s authors (mostly volunteers) were eager to collaborate, according to Dustin Mulvaney, who was focused on the Southwest section of the report at San Jose State University. “Many of us thought, ‘We can still do this!'”
However, with all the authors now released, completing the report appears unlikely.
A NASA spokesman, responsible for the global change research program, chose not to comment. Yet, some report authors stated to New Scientist that they received a brief notification indicating that all authors had been dismissed as agents assessed the “scope” of the evaluations.
The notification mentioned “future opportunities” for contributions. Ultimately, Congress legally requires these assessments, and the administration can still appoint new authors. Earlier reports emphasized climate risks, while new analyses will likely focus more on how the US is responding to climate change through reduced emissions and infrastructure adaptation.
Even if the report is eventually published, it may lack the rigor and reliability found in previous assessments, according to Mijin Cha, who was working on emission reductions at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “Now they’ve completely compromised it.”
“I think everyone is really disheartened by this situation,” she expressed.
The Trump administration has dismissed numerous scientists and experts who were working on the federal government’s key report regarding the impacts of global warming on the nation.
This decision, which is obligatory in Congress, poses significant risks to the future of the National Climate Assessment, according to experts.
Since 2000, the federal government has released an in-depth report every few years detailing how rising temperatures influence human health, agriculture, fisheries, water resources, transportation, energy generation, and various aspects of the U.S. economy. The latest climate assessment was published in 2023. This report is utilized not only by state and local authorities but also by private enterprises, assisting in preparations for extreme weather events, floods, droughts, and other climate-related challenges.
On Monday, researchers nationwide began the preparation for the sixth National Climate Assessment, scheduled for early 2028, only to receive an email indicating that the report’s scope is “currently under review” and all contributors have been dismissed.
“We are now liberating all existing assessment contributors from their roles,” the email stated. “As the evaluation plan progresses, there may be future chances for contribution or involvement. Thank you for your service.”
For some authors, this felt like a devastating setback for the next report.
“This could signal the end of the assessment,” remarked Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University specializing in climate adaptation and a co-author of the previous climate assessment. “If we eliminate all involved, there will be no advancement.”
The White House has not yet responded to requests for comments.
Climate assessments are generally compiled by volunteer scientists and expert contributors from across the nation. The process involves multiple reviews by 14 federal agencies and a public comment period. Oversight is provided by the Global Change Research Program, a federal entity established by Congress in 1990, with support from NASA.
During the Trump administration, this process faced significant upheaval. Recently, NASA terminated its major partnership with ICF International, a consulting firm that supplied much of the technical support and staffing for the Global Change Research Program, which coordinates the contributions from numerous sources.
President Trump has consistently downplayed the risks associated with global warming. Russell Vert, the current head of the Office of Management and Budget, noted in a pre-election document that the next president should “reorganize” the global change research program, as scientific reports on climate change were often utilized in environmental litigation that restricted federal actions.
Vought advocated for the separation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the agency responsible for the government’s largest climate research unit, termed the “climate warning.”
During Trump’s first term, the administration made efforts to undermine the national climate assessment. When the 2018 report was released, which found that global warming posed an imminent and catastrophic threat, the administration published it the day after Thanksgiving to lessen its impact.
In February, scientists submitted a comprehensive summary of the upcoming assessment to the White House for initial review; however, that review has been halted, and the agency’s comment period has been delayed.
It remains uncertain what will happen next with the assessment, which is still mandated by Congress. Some scientists worry that the administration may attempt to draft an entirely new report from scratch, potentially downplaying the dangers of rising temperatures and contradicting established climate science.
“These are the most effective strategies to assist us,” said Mead Crosby, a senior scientist in the Climate Impact Group at the University of Washington, who has contributed to the assessment. “The real question is whether it accurately reflects reliable science and has a tangible impact on our community in preparing for climate change.”
Scientists previously involved in climate assessments assert that the report is crucial for understanding the effects of climate change on daily life in the United States.
Catherine Hayho, a climate scientist at Texas Tech, stated this month, “we are considering that global issue and making it more relevant to us.” “If you care about food, water, transportation, insurance, or health, this is what climate change signifies for residents in the Southwest or the Great Plains. That’s the importance.”
Numerous state and local policymakers, along with private companies, depend on these assessments to comprehend how climate change impacts various regions of the United States and how they can adapt accordingly.
While the scientific understanding of climate change and its repercussions has not dramatically shifted since the last assessment in 2023, Dr. Keenan from Tulane noted that research is continuously advancing regarding what communities can do to mitigate rising sea levels and other issues exacerbated by increasing temperatures.
Scientists indicated that decision-makers responsible for the final assessment would likely rely on outdated information regarding effective adaptations and mitigation measures.
“We risk losing our fundamental report, which is intended to communicate the dangers of climate change and propose advancements,” stated Dustin Mulbany, an environmental studies professor and author at San Jose State University. “That would be quite devastating.”
Melting Arctic ice. Record-breaking wildfires across multiple states. Countries experiencing average warming are warming at a twice the rate of other regions worldwide.
Yet, when Canadians head to the polls on Monday, climate change isn’t even among the top ten issues for voters. Recent surveys indicate this shift.
“That’s not the focus of this election,” remarked Jessica Green, a political scientist at the University of Toronto specializing in climate-related topics.
The election revolves around a collective desire to choose a leader capable of standing up to Donald J. Trump, who poses a threat to Canada amidst a trade war, if not a full annexation as the “51st state.”
Leading the polls is liberal Mark Carney, who boasts decades of experience in climate policy. He served for five years as a UN envoy on climate action and finance, orchestrating a coalition of banks committed to halting carbon dioxide emissions through financing practices by 2050.
Despite his impressive background, Carney hasn’t prioritized climate change in his campaign. Following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation, one of Carney’s initial actions was to eliminate fuel taxes based on emission levels, including gasoline taxes.
While many Canadians have redirected the resulting funds into rebate checks, Mr. Carney appears to misunderstand the policy, labeling it as “too divided.”
This decision, coupled with similarities between his Conservative opponents, Pierre Poilievre and Trump, has contributed to Carney’s rise in the polls.
“Carney made a clever move by abolishing the consumer carbon tax, which was widely unpopular and essentially formed the basis of Poilievre’s campaign against him,” said Dr. Green. “It took the wind out of the Conservative Party’s sails.”
Mr. Carney is acutely aware of political dynamics. In a recent television discussion, he mentioned to Poilievre, “I spent years advocating for Justin Trudeau and the carbon tax.”
Poilievre is a staunch supporter of Canada’s vast oil and gas industry, making Canada the fourth-largest oil producer and the fifth-largest gas producer globally. Yet, unlike Trump, he recognizes the necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change.
“Canadian oil and clean natural gas must replace coal globally, allowing countries like India and others in Asia to utilize gas instead of dirty coal,” he stated at a recent press conference during his campaign.
However, Carney’s proposals don’t significantly differ. He envisions Canada as a “superpower of both traditional and clean energy.” His platform suggests reforms like bolstering the carbon market and expediting approvals for clean energy initiatives.
Perhaps the most significant distinction between the candidates lies in their views on Canada’s oil and gas emission caps and the tax on industrial emissions, both defended by Trudeau.
Poilievre aims to eliminate these in accordance with industry demands, whereas Carney intends to maintain them. The Canadian Climate Research Institute states that the Industrial Carbon Tax reduces emissions by at least three times more than the consumer tax, making it the most effective policy deployed to decrease emissions leading up to 2030.
Canada ranks among the world’s highest per capita greenhouse gas emitters and is not on track to meet its commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement. By 2030, the aim is to achieve a minimum of 40-45% reductions from 2005 levels, but the latest national emissions Inventory Report indicates just an 8.5% decrease through 2023.
A year later, Vermont enacted the Climate Change Superfund Act, holding an oil and gas company financially responsible for the state’s climate damages. A similar law was passed in New York in 2024 and is pending in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts.
Understanding the law involves attribution science, a field that uses global temperature data to model numerous scenarios to determine if extreme weather events like floods and heatwaves are linked to emissions from burning oil, gas, and coal.
A new paper published in Nature Journal on Wednesday magnifies this work to connect emissions from specific entities to the economic impact of extreme events.
“The oil industry is astonished by the state’s climate superfund laws and their increasing popularity, as they are the first policies globally to hold a significant portion of the major losses responsible for the substantial damages incurred by their products.”
The response to the law was swift. In February, West Virginia and other Republican-led states sought to challenge New York’s laws, arguing that only the federal government has the authority to regulate emissions. President Trump signed an executive order this month criticizing the state law as a burden and ideological motivation, calling on Attorney General Pam Bondy to block enforcement.
Environmental attorneys have been exploring how harm can be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions for years, according to Martin Rockman, a climate law fellow at Columbia University’s Sabine Center.
“Attribution science is crucial because it establishes links between particular activities of businesses that profit from fossil fuels and specific harms to states and communities,” Rockman stated. “If you’re causing harm, you should be accountable for mitigating it, it’s that simple.”
The new study will enhance an approach known as “end-to-end” attribution, linking a specific emitter (e.g., a company) to a particular climate-related impact (e.g., extreme heat) and subsequent damage (impact on the global economy).
The study revealed that Chevron’s emissions caused heat-related losses totaling up to $3.6 trillion in the global economy. Christopher Callahan, a postdoctoral geoscientist at Stanford University and the study’s author, noted that such high costs still underestimate the global repercussions of fossil fuel combustion in less affluent tropical regions with minimal emissions responsibility.
“That astounding figure represents the detriment from just one of the climate impacts,” stated Delta Melner, associate director of the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Coalition of Concerned Scientists. “The overall harm caused by major emitters is undoubtedly much greater when considering the full range of climate risks.”
Theodore J. Bootras Jr., a Chevron Corporation lawyer, argued that the study “disregards the scientific impossibility of attributing a specific climate or weather phenomenon to a particular country, company, or energy consumer.” He labeled it as futile state litigation and a misleading advocacy campaign for energy penalties and regulations.
Overall, the paper estimated that the global economy would suffer $28 trillion in damages due to extreme heat caused by emissions from 111 major carbon producers between 1991 and 2020.
More than 100 climate-related lawsuits have been filed annually since 2017, as per a recent study. However, these cases scrutinize attribution studies that struggle to connect emissions to estimated economic losses.
This innovative framework can offer similar capabilities in other major damage and liability cases, analogous to those handled in tobacco-related lung cancer lawsuits and pharmaceutical claims for addiction.
Justin Mankin, a geography professor specializing in climate science at Dartmouth University and co-author of the Nature paper, remarked:
World Weather Attribution, a group based at Imperial College London, has regularly published attribution reports over the past decade.
“Unfortunately, we are still one of the few entities engaged in this work, and we are not an official institution. It’s essentially a project I undertake as a university professor in collaboration with a team of colleagues,” stated Friedrike Otto, a physicist aiding in attributing global weather.
Dr. Callahan and Dr. Mankin utilized open-source tools in their models, developing code and data resources they deployed to publish the global costs of climate change on their website.
“We advocate for transparent and open science, particularly since the research was funded by U.S. taxpayers,” Dr. Mankin emphasized, highlighting a significant portion of the research support originating from NOAA, the nation’s leading climate science agency facing funding cuts during the Trump administration.
Extreme weather events have disrupted communities and continue to exacerbate tensions. According to Vermont Senator Anne Watson, the 2023 flood cost Vermont hundreds of millions of dollars, prompting her to sponsor a bill quantifying state damages between 1995 and 2024.
Julie Moore, the secretary at the Vermont Natural Resources Agency, assisted states in organizing their inquiries for more information to better grasp the various approaches in attribution science and comprehend how to assign damages caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
“The charge against us is to establish guidelines on applying attribution science and ultimately send out a cost recovery notice,” Moore explained. According to state laws, oil and gas companies will receive this notice in early 2027.
“The expectation is that it will aid Vermont in securing a substantial amount to cover damages and adapt to a hotter, more humid climate resulting from carbon in the atmosphere,” Watson expressed. “We need a source to determine accountability for this.”
The Trump administration has slashed funding and staff for a program overseeing the primary federal report on the impacts of global warming on the country, leading to concerns among scientists about the future of assessments.
Congress mandates the National Climate Assessment every four years, examining the effects of rising temperatures on various sectors of the US economy. The most recent report was published in 2023 and is being utilized by state and city governments and private companies to prepare for climate change.
The Global Change Research Program, established by Congress in 1990 and supported by NASA, coordinates efforts among 14 federal agencies, the Smithsonian agency, and external scientists to produce these reports.
NASA recently issued stopwork orders for consulting firms ICF International, which provided crucial technical support and staff for the Global Change Research Program. The cancellation of this support has raised uncertainty about the future of the assessment.
Scientists are unsure how the assessment can proceed without ICF’s support, as they have played a significant role in previous assessments.
In response, NASA is working to rationalize contracts and improve efficiency in supporting Congress-mandated programs. The cancellation of the ICF contract was first reported by Politico.
The next national climate assessment, scheduled for 2027 or 2028, may face challenges following these developments, with many climate scientists already expressing concerns about its future.
During Trump’s first term, the administration attempted to undermine the nation’s climate assessment, releasing the 2018 report on the day after Thanksgiving to minimize its impact.
Climate assessments involve scientists nationwide who volunteer to write reports, which then undergo reviews by federal agencies. The delay in the review process for the upcoming assessment has raised concerns among scientists.
Federal involvement in the assessment adds significant value, according to experts, as it ensures a comprehensive review by all federal agencies and the public.
The National Climate Assessment is crucial for understanding how climate change impacts everyday life in the United States, bringing the global issue closer to home.
Climate scientists emphasize the importance of the assessment in highlighting the effects of climate change on various aspects of daily life.
The heavy storm system that floods the central and southeastern US with heavy rain and winds fits a wider pattern as rainfall has increased over the eastern US half has increased in recent decades.
Data from the National Maritime and Atmospheric Administration from 1991 to 2020 show that on average the eastern part of the country received more rain, on average, than in the 20th century. At the same time, precipitation decreased in the west.
The sharp East-West division is consistent with predictions from climate scientists who expect wet areas to be wet, with dry areas becoming dry as the world warms.
Without further analysis, individual storms cannot be linked to climate change, but warming the air will result in greater rainfall. This is because warm air has the ability to retain more moisture than cooler air, and has the potential to be fueled due to overall average precipitation, and more intense storms.
The world’s temperatures are increasing year by year, driven by the combustion of fossil fuels that send greenhouse gases that warm the planets into the atmosphere. According to a recent report, the 10 people have been the hottest recordkeeping for nearly 200 years. World Weather Organization.
“When there are these very heavy rain events, trends refer to the heavy trends of these intense events,” said Deanna, an associate professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign University.
Severe flooding could be an indirect effect of warming air and increased moisture, according to Gerald Brotzge, a Kentucky national climate scientist and director of the Kentucky Climate Center. If conditions stall a storm system, it can cause heavy rain in the same area, increasing the risk of flooding.
This is what happened when the storm recently stagnated in the region. “I think it’s a once-at-a-time event based on the amount and area covered,” Brotzge said.
Mark Jarvis, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service office in Louisville, Kentucky, described the storm as two. It brought tornadoes, strong winds and hail to the front end, then stalled and dropped historic amounts of rainfall. Western Kentucky, who saw some of the most serious effects of the storm, “it was in the eyes of the bull,” he said.
Heavy rain and flooding are common in Ohio Valley in late winter and early spring, but the system is as common as it is “very rare” for rain. “That’s what you normally see in hurricanes and tropical systems,” he said..
Storm damage is constantly happening, but the possibility that climate change is increasing them is Observed weather trendstherefore Mr.
She said that even in the western half of the United States, which is generally dry, the coming precipitation tends to drop at more extreme levels.
She called it “very eye-opening,” adding, “it’s not particularly comfortable to think we have more of this.”
NASA’s funding cuts have already impacted US research and education programs
dcstockphotography/shutterstock
NASA has cancelled contracts and grants worth up to $420 million, following guidance from the Trump administration’s government efficiency (DOGE). The reductions will impact research projects and education programs in the United States, but NASA says it’s perfect for checking exactly which organizations are affected.
After Doge, an independent task force led by tech billionaire Elon Musk, NASA confirmed the amount but refused to specify which programs were cancelled. Casey Drier The Planetary Association, a California-based nonprofit organization, list of a program that has recently lost funds using the agency’s public grant database. NASA has since deleted the database and did not respond to questions about the accuracy of the list.
Much of the cuts on Dreyer’s list coincides with President Donald Trump’s skepticism about climate science and his administration’s active targets regarding his interpretation of the Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) program.
Climate-related cancellations include a Massachusetts Institute of Technology project that uses satellite sensors to map the impacts of extreme heat, air pollution and flooding. Another target was a University of Oklahoma study to develop digital twin simulations that predict the impact of flooding on tribal lands.
However, it is unclear why NASA has ended support for other research, such as using bioengineering cells to investigate how spaceflight affects the human body and modelling how lunar dust can contaminate future lunar missions.
NASA spokesman Bethany Stevens said New Scientist The agency is “to work with the Ministry of Government Efficiency initiative to optimize the workforce and resources.” Doge urged agencies across the US government to cut funding or shut down altogether.
But it says that ongoing grants and contract cancellations will fly in the face of a “strict” review process that selected them in the first place as “the most scientifically appropriate proposal.” Michael Batario At Yale University. “Politics cannot and should not define what is scientifically worth studying at the level of individual grants,” says Batario, who is studying the atmosphere of Mars and Titan in preparation for future missions.
“DEI related cuts get me the most out of the way.” Bruce Jacoski He was the lead scientist at NASA’s Maven Mission to Mars at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “These grants are about reaching out to underrepresented groups and making people accessible to training and education. None of them appears to promote people who are less qualified than more qualified.”
For example, NASA cut funding for a conference hosted by the National Association of Black Physicists, a longtime nonprofit that promotes the professional well-being of African-American physicists and physics students. “We were told that the reason for cancelling the contract is to comply with the president’s executive order regarding the DEI,” he said. Stephen Robersonpresident of the National Association of Black Physics. “We would like to appeal this decision and explain further why an annual conference, in which people of all races and academic levels present scientific research, is considered a DEI.”
New Scientist They reached out to researchers and organizations that they thought were affected, but few responded to the National Association of Black Physicists. The San Diego Aerospace Museum, featured on Drayer’s list, said NASA’s funding for educational events appears to be still intact, despite the NASA database indicating changes to the grant’s end date. NASA did not respond to requests to verify the status of this fund.
During the winter there was a little bird gush to lift my heart. There are no occasional caw caw, chickadee dee of chickadee, big songs of little carolina rens that stay on our Pennsylvania farms throughout the winter, but no great horned owl courtship calls, nor wooden thrush or Baltimore orioles. Still, I was delighted with the music that was left behind.
However, we just heard the first notes of our first returning songbird, and with a red-winged blackbird, the snowdrop began to protrude from the ground.
The other day I forced their flowers to move last fall potted tulips and hyacinths from the unheated side of the barn into the warmth of the garden room. However, the vegetable garden is a puddle of icy mud, and the flowerbeds are still finely covered with leaves, showing little signs of life. The boxwood is covered in burlap and the snow fence is covered around trees and shrubs to prevent deer from being devoured.
The deer, which has changed from the color of milk chocolate to dark, breaks through the makeshift deterrent, eating Ee, Eunee Mauss, Treehouse, and this winter, Holly. The squirrels are running around joining their radar, but the chipmunks are still nowhere to be seen. I think they are in their dens that I think opossums, raccoons and bears are.
I’ve been waiting for a greenhouse, but now I’m hoping to hibernate in the winter and take a break from sowing, potting and growing. To walk through snowy forests and observe animal tracks, study ice patterns in the pond and make it seasonal. I would like to read in the Fire and Skilled Garden Catalog. Imagine what the garden will look like next year, and hope that next year will be better than last time, as all gardeners do. As Vita Sackville-West wrote in her poem, “The Garden:”
The gardener dreams of his own special alloy
Possibility and impossible.
But what is possible now? Looking back at last year’s terrible season, how do you adapt to the changes I witness?
A year ago, the winter was very warm, the shrub barely died, and last spring, a welcome sight dripping with leaves, but not normal. Spring was so hot that I missed out on a nice, cool window for the transplant. Early season, I didn’t know when to plant ruthless vegetables, and when to produce soft plants, not 85 degrees.
“After the danger of frost” is a general wisdom, but when is that? my Plant hardiness zone I’ve recently shifted as the coldest temperatures in my area are three degrees higher than in 2012. But even that new guidance didn’t help me.
Mid May felt like mid-June. It was then arriving on May 29th.
Anyway, I planted poppies in April (they like cool weather), but the seeds were washed away by the flood. There was a drought between June and November. The grass was brown. Dogwood and Tulip Poplar lost their leaves in July. My vegetable garden resembles a cracked riverbed. The soil was very hard and weeding was almost impossible.
The stream was dry so I saw deer walking into the pond and drinking for the first time in 36 years. Small food was available for them, so they distorted to our garage and ate deer-bearing lavender. Walking through the forest, I was impressed by the lack of growth underneath, especially the huge patch of nettle nettle from North American origin, the host plant for Admiral Akagi and the butterfly in Eastern Comma. Chanteles never bear fruit in normal places. I was worried that our spring would dry out.
Pennsylvania saw record wildfires in the fall. Usually, the two lilacs that appear in the spring bloom in October, and in late November I was harvesting something that I had not yet grown.
All of this reminds me of a radio show called “Piano Puzzlers.” My husband and I listen to it on Saturday mornings. Composer Bruce Adolf rewrites songs that are familiar to the classic composer’s style. He changes the tempo, harmony, or mode of the tune, and the contestants try to name the song and the composer. Imagine “a bit of a jude” in Brahms style. Somewhere in my brain, the song sounds familiar, but something is off. The music is misplaced. Sometimes I guess correctly. In many cases, it is not.
Climate change gardening is the same. Confusing and there are many speculations.
What should a home gardener do?
“The only predictable thing is that it becomes unpredictable,” said Sonja Skelly, director of education at Cornell Botanical Gardens in Ithaca, New York, “it was crazy too.”
Last spring was hot in Ithaca, so vegetable gardeners began planting two weeks before the frost-free date on May 31st. Extreme temperature fluctuations were then created, but the plants that just started were better as they were established. Things planted on the target day were stunted and were in poor growth period. “A good lesson,” Dr. Skelly said. The line covering that allows gardeners to get and grow plants later in the season “is really important in a climate like ours,” she said.
Covered crops such as millet, sorghum and black-eyed peas have been successful in botanical gardens. They improve moisture retention, reduce weeds, reduce erosion, and limit negative microorganisms in the soil. The birds love them, Dr. Skelly said.
She recommended planting together what the Haudeno Sauny people call three sisters, corn, beans and squash. The system produces better yields per hectare than any monoculture crop system, she said.
Drip irrigation is another solution, Dr. Skelly said. “It adds moisture where it is needed at the roots,” she said. The water is slowly released and remains laid down, and does not escape as with manual watering or using sprinklers.
“Observe, take notes, ask questions, ask for answers,” advised Dr. Skelly. “What are your neighbors watching?” I’ve been working on this issue for a while, learning through going to local botanical gardens, public gardens and nature centres. “Try to keep the information cycle running and talk to friends, family and neighbors as a way to help you understand it. That’s very important,” she said.
Dr. Skelly believes it is important for home gardeners to truly understand their plants. “Climate change may be a way to get to know our gardens much better,” she said. “We have to do it.”
For a long time I relied on experts who taught me how to garden responsibly. Do not harm the environment. I have learned to plant a variety of plants, including pollinator natives, and celebrate native weeds like Freeben. I’m practicing planting companions. I don’t spray pesticides or pesticides, and instead use compost, I make my own from comfrey and stinging nettles instead. I wish I could buy plants from something other than plastic.
But the more we contemplate gardening in an age of climate change, the more we believe our home gardeners must find many solutions for themselves. Much of gardening is trial and error, and unstable weather patterns mean that we must experiment more to do our own research. Essentially, we must become citizen scientists in our own vegetable patches and flowerbeds.
Cornell Botanic Garden has a garden for climate demonstrations, but in fact we all do. None of us had experienced this. And in the end, we’re all together. You will navigate a strange new world of digging the soil and growing things.
The collection of Daryln Brewer Hoffstot’s essay, “A Farm Life: Observations from Fields and Forests,” was published by Stackpole Books.
The Supreme Court on Monday concluded its 10-year journey through the court, refusing to hear appeals in a groundbreaking climate case brought to the federal government by 21 young people.
However, the case provided a blueprint for many other climate-related lawsuits that have achieved greater success.
Juliana v. the United States alleged that the government violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights with policies that encourage the use of fossil fuels. However, it was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit, and the judge ruled that the court was not the right place to deal with climate change.
“In fact, the impressive case of plaintiff relief must be presented to the political sector of the government,” wrote Judge Andrew D. Harwitz. Opinions for 2020.
The nonprofit law firm in Eugene, Oregon, which represents the plaintiffs, filed the final legal gambit in a lawsuit last year. Last year, she threw the Supreme Court’s decision back on the Court of Appeals and asked Juliana to go to trial in a lower court. The petition was rejected Monday.
Some observers also thought it was risky to ask the Supreme Court to consider appeals, given concerns that conservative courts might use the case to abandon long-standing environmental protections.
The plaintiff in the case is Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, a now 29-year-old Oregon teacher, the environmentalist and longtime climate activist daughter. The story of how she became involved in the lawsuit was documented in the documentary “Youthv. Gov.”
Juliana’s legal framework has since been replicated in numerous lawsuits and legal actions across the country. And last year, our child’s trust, which submitted many cases, recorded two notable victories.
The group has reached a settlement between Navahine v. Hawaii Department. There, the state agreed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas that warms the planet from its transport system within 20 years. And that’s a hold v. We won in Montana. There, the judge ruled that the state must consider climate change when approving a fossil fuel project. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision in December.
The plaintiff named in that case led to the decision to take part in the case as 23-year-old Ricky grew up on a cattle ranch in Montana and saw the effects of climate change firsthand. She is currently a science educator through the Peace Corps of Kenya.
On Monday, she said the Juliana incident paved the way for her. “Juliana left an indelible mark on the climate lawsuit landscape through the unwavering dedication of the plaintiffs and legal team,” she said.
Julia Olson, founder of Our Children’s Trust, had asked the Biden administration to discuss the settlement in the Juliana case. She said on Monday that Juliana “littles a legal movement.”
However, Justice Department lawyers argued that the court was not set up correctly to address climate change as judges were unable to order or enforce “viable relief” on the matter.
Some experts also raised concerns about the organization’s strategy in the Supreme Court, focusing on the risk that a conservative vast majority of courts could adopt Juliana’s case as a way to rethink legal precedents that will take root in environmental protection.
In an interview last year, Vermont law and graduate environmental law expert Patrick Derprue said: “If you need an answer to this question, you probably don’t like the answer you’re trying to get.”
However, he added that he still praises the efforts of the youth and their lawyers.
Olson said environmentalists should not move away from the courts. “If we don’t show up, don’t advance our claims, don’t shed light on injustice, then other forces will always win,” she said.
Staff cuts have impacted work at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Kristoffer Tripplaar / Alamy
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says it will “stop” monthly calls to update reporters on seasonal weather forecasts and global climate conditions.
A NOAA spokesman says recent cuts, resignation and resignation under President Donald Trump's control have led to staffing issues that have led to agents “no longer able to support them.” But they say every month Report It will be edited and continued to be published by the National Center for Environmental Information, operated by NOAA.
He says another reason the agency is closing calls could be due to fear of employees violating the new administration by talking about climate change. Tom Di RivatoNOAA's genius scientist and public relations specialist who was fired during widespread cuts in February. “They don't want to get stuck between telling the truth and then riding on the wrong side of a political appointee,” he says.
During the monthly call, NOAA scientists will provide you with updates on a variety of predictions and measurements the agency has created. In addition to information on global land and ocean temperatures, the description includes information on seasonal weather forecasts and droughts in the United States. These calls also give reporters the opportunity to ask questions to help them better understand new information.
In past briefings, researchers openly discussed the role of human-induced climate change in driving at record high temperatures. But last month's call – first held under the new administration – NOAA researchers declined to mention climate change when discussing record global temperatures in January. The call ended later New Scientist We asked the researchers directly to see what role climate change played at high temperatures.
Di Liberto says the agency has not explicitly directed researchers, let alone climate change. However, he knows from his current contact with staff there is an atmosphere of fear about saying the wrong thing.
“It's a fear of being cut, but I'm also afraid that the work they're doing is trying to help people, or that they're being told they can't say what they can say based on science,” he says.
Since January, the administration has fired almost 1,000 people from government agencies, and hundreds more have resigned. The government is It reportedly plans to cut more than 1,000 employeesone-tenth of the agency's workforce.
In the section on “Labor Market Risks”, the report indicates that the impact on jobs will be “serious”, particularly with highly capable AI agents (tools that can perform tasks without human intervention). Caution is advised.
“General-purpose AI has the ability to automate a wide range of tasks, potentially leading to significant impact on the labor market. This could result in job loss.”
The report also mentions that while some economists believe that job losses due to automation may be offset by new job creation in non-automated sectors.
According to the International Monetary Fund, about 60% of jobs in advanced economies like the US and UK are at risk of automation, with half of those jobs being potentially impacted negatively. The Tony Blair Institute suggests that AI could displace up to 3 million jobs in the UK, but also create new roles in industries transitioning to AI, which could bring in hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The report mentions that if autonomous AI agents can complete tasks over extended periods without human supervision, the consequences could be particularly severe.
It cites Some experts who have raised concerns about a future where work is mostly eliminated. In 2023, Elon Musk predicted that AI could eventually render human work obsolete, but the report acknowledges uncertainty about how AI will impact the labor market.
2. environment
The report discusses AI’s environmental impact due to its electricity consumption during training, labeling it as a “moderate but growing contributor” through data centers, which are crucial for AI model operation.
Data centers and data transmission contribute about 1% to energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, with AI accounting for up to 28% of data center energy consumption.
The report also raises concerns about the increasing energy consumption as models become more advanced, noting that a significant portion of global model training relies on high-carbon energy sources such as coal and natural gas. It points out that without the use of renewable energy and efficiency improvements, AI development could hinder progress towards environmental goals by adding to energy demand.
Furthermore, the report highlights the potential threat to human rights and the environment posed by AI’s water consumption for cooling data center devices. However, it acknowledges that AI’s environmental impact is not yet fully understood.
3. Control loss
The report addresses concerns about the emergence of superintelligent AI systems that could surpass human control, raising fears about the disappearance of humanity. While these concerns are acknowledged, opinions vary on the likelihood of such events.
Bengio stated that AI systems capable of autonomously carrying out tasks are still in development, preventing these systems from executing the long-term planning necessary for widespread job displacement. He emphasized that without the ability to plan long-term, AI would remain under human control.
4. Bioweapons
The report mentions the potential of AI models in creating step-by-step instructions for developing pathogens and toxins beyond the expertise of PhD-level professionals. However, it raises concerns about the possibility of misuse by inexperienced individuals.
Progress has been observed in developing models capable of supporting professionals in reproducing known biological threats, according to experts.
5. Cyber security
From a cybersecurity perspective, AI’s rapid growth includes autonomous bots capable of identifying vulnerabilities in open-source software and generating code that can be freely downloaded and adapted. However, the current limitation is that AI technology cannot autonomously plan or execute cyber attacks.
6. Deep fake
The report highlights instances where AI-generated deep fakes have been maliciously used. However, it notes a lack of data to fully quantify the extent of deep fake manipulation.
The report suggests that addressing issues like digital watermark deletion in AI-generated content is a fundamental task in combatting deep fake content.
A new report states that the modern and dry winds that have been dried at high temperatures led to the fire in the Southern California have been about 35 % higher due to climate change.
The survey results are from a world meteorological group that analyzes the effects of global warming on extreme events.
The fire killed at least 29 people and destroyed more than 16,000 buildings.
The International Scientist Group has increased the extreme situation of climate change in the extreme situation that recent fires have made RO sounds in the Los Angeles area as a whole.
A strong state of dry winds at high temperatures ahead of the fire could have been about 35 % higher due to global warming caused by humans. New reports from the World Meteorological attribute groupWe analyze the effects of global warming on extreme events.
The fire, which began in the event of a fierce storm in the spring, killed at least 29 people, including houses, shops, and schools, as it had not been raining in the Great Los Angeles since spring.
“This was a perfect storm for the conditions of the fire disaster. From the viewpoint of the climate that enables the climate, the weather that drives the fire, and the huge environment from the place where these ignitions occurred.” Merced, who contributed to the report at the University of California, said at a press conference.
Compared to the time before the industrial revolution before fossil fuels were widely used, the Los Angeles area had a “dry season” on average every year, and the fire may match the seasonal Santaanana style. Is high. 。
Park Williams, a geographical professor at the University of Los Angeles, the University of California, said Park Williams in the cool season of Southern California. Unusually dry state; Ignition (almost always comes from people); and extreme weather like recent storms. He explained each of these conditions as an individual switch in a system that needs to be turned over all four to emit light.
“The artificial warming caused by climate change caused by humans makes light brighter,” said Williams.
The author in the report analyzes the weather and climate models to evaluate how the warm atmosphere changes the possibility of fire (it means a condition that increases the risk of mountain fire). They also tracked how metrics called the fire weather index changed over time. The index tracks all factors that contribute to temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and fire.
Researchers have discovered that the types of conditions that promote the fire in the LA region are expected to occur once every 17 years in today's climate. Such a state would have been predicted once in 23 years without climate change, and it would not have been so extreme when they occurred.
The high seawater temperature that contributed to the weather of California’s storm in late 2023
Kevin Carter/Getty Image
Researchers say the rapid increase in marine temperature up to the level of the record breaking in 2023 and 2024 is a sign that the pace of climate change has accelerated.
The world marine temperature reached a record high for 450 days in 2023 and early 2024. The Ehninho’s weather pattern, which appears in the Pacific Ocean, can explain some of the extra heat, but about 44 % of the recorded warmth is decreasing to the world. According to the sea, which absorbs heat from the sun, the acceleration speed Christmer chat At a British lady university.
Merchants and his colleagues have analyzed marine warming over the past 40 years using satellite data, concluding that the speed of warming has been more than four times since 1985.
The team says that this rapid acceleration depends on the rapid change of the EEI of the earth’s energy. This is the scale of how much heat is trapped in the atmosphere. The EEI has doubled since 2010, and the sea has absorbed much more heat than before.
“The sea generally sets a pace of global warming,” says a merchant. “Therefore, as an extension, global warming is accelerating as a whole, including land.” Merchants are “I personally convinced that accelerating climate change is a major factor in recent marine temperature increase. I say. “
Based on their analysis, merchants and his team predict that marine warming will continue to increase rapidly in the next few decades. “If the tendency of the EEI is out of the future, a large amount of global warming can be expected in the next 20 years, as in the past 40 years.
The climate model hopes that the speed of climate change will accelerate, but the analysis of the merchant suggests that the trend of the real world is in line with the most pessimistic model forecast. “The fact that this data -driven analysis is placed in a high -end high -end that the model predicted is a problem that needs to be viewed,” he says.
However, early data suggests that EEI decreased in 2024 after a recorded spike in 2023. Some researchers argue that this data may not accelerate in the worst scenario.
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.
