Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming

The annual UN climate talks, COP29, will kick off on November 11, just days after the US elections and in a year of numerous consequential elections around the world. Coming at the end of what is certain to be the hottest year on record, with millions of people experiencing devastating climate-fueled disasters and global heat-trapping emissions still rising, this COP has a sobering backdrop. Here’s what’s on the agenda at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and why it matters.

Priorities for COP29

COP29 is being billed as the ‘Finance COP.’ That’s because countries previously agreed under the Paris Agreement that, by the end of 2024, they would decide on the new quantum of climate finance for lower-income countries, building on the previous target of $100 billion/year. While this is the top priority, other important issues will also be on the agenda.

At COP29, world leaders must deliver outcomes that respond to the acute state of the climate crisis, including:

1. An agreement on a robust climate finance goal (aka the new collective quantified goal, or NCQG, on climate finance). As I discussed in a previous blogpost, this funding is crucial for lower-income countries to be able to make a rapid clean energy transition while closing the huge energy poverty gap for millions of people without access to modern forms of energy. It is also essential for these countries’ climate adaptation needs and for addressing their loss and damage from extreme climate impacts. UCS is urging the United States and other rich countries, together with additional contributors in a position to provide funding, to commit to a collective goal of $1 trillion annually starting in 2025. This could be met from a variety of sources—including pollution fees on fossil fuel companies, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and wealth taxes on the richest people. The true need is in the trillions, and it’s only just that richer countries, which are most responsible for heat-trapping emissions, take the lead by paying their fair share. It’s time to also expand the contributor base to include oil-rich countries in the Middle East, Singapore and China, among others. This funding must come primarily in the form of grants or very low-interest loans to avoid exacerbating the debt burden in lower-income nations. Reforming the international multilateral lending architecture to be fairer and more aligned with climate and sustainable development objectives is also critical.
   
2. A strong signal that nations will submit more ambitious emission reduction commitments (aka nationally determined contributions, or NDCs) by February 2025. Numerous scientific reports (see below) show that nations are falling far short of what is needed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. The next round of NDCs is due by February, and it will be very important for major emitting nations—including the U.S., EU member states, and China—to significantly ratchet up their targets. UCS is advocating for the US to commit to cutting its emissions at least 70% below 2005 levels by 2035, a level that can be met if we implement additional strong policies (beyond the Inflation Reduction Act and other existing federal and state policies) to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy and the phase out of fossil fuels. Cutting emissions across all sectors and all heat-trapping gases is crucial. Unfortunately, we are currently not even on track to meet our 2030 goal of cutting emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels, and the choices made by the next administration will make a big difference in our chances of getting there.
   
3. An agreement to adequately resource the UN Loss and Damage Fund and quickly disburse funds to frontline communities. Last year on the opening day of COP28, nations agreed to launch the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, a hard-won historic achievement, but one that came with paltry initial pledges. Since then, the World Bank has taken on the role of hosting the fund and serving as its trustee on an interim basis for four years. Now, what’s desperately needed are new funding commitments from countries to help meet the significant and growing needs as the climate crisis worsens. As just one example, earlier this year, heavy rainfall and flooding across Sudan, Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon, worsened by climate change, killed more than 2,000 people and displaced millions. Climate vulnerable countries need funding to start flowing quickly. The Loss and Damage Fund should also include a community access window providing directly accessible small grants for communities, local civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples and groups facing marginalization. At COP29, nations—including the United States—must make substantive new pledges to the Fund, and these commitments should also be reflected as part of the overall NCQG negotiations.   
   
4. Clear follow-through on last year’s agreement transition away from fossil fuels. At COP28, as part of the outcome of the first Global Stocktake, countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels including accelerating action in this critical decade, as well as to triple renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030. Despite important gains in renewable energy, there is still more progress needed and fossil fuels continue to expand at odds with this agreement.
   
5. Progress on support for climate adaptation. Adaptation has received far less attention and funding than climate mitigation efforts, even as climate impacts rapidly worsen. A 2023 UN report estimates that the adaptation finance gap is about $ 194-366 billion per year. For many lower-income nations facing punishing climate impacts, this lack of support is increasingly untenable and undermining trust in the global climate regime. Under the NCQG agreement, climate finance for adaptation must be on par with mitigation. At COP28, nations reached agreement on a framework for a Global Goal on Adaptation, but there is much more needed to help implement this aspirational framework including funding, technical assistance, risk and vulnerability assessments, and clear metrics for progress.

Scientific reports sound the alarm (again)

Ahead of COP29, a series of recent scientific reports signal how far off track the world is in meeting its climate goals and the harsh toll of impacts on people—but also point the path to necessary actions that policymakers must secure. These include:

1. IEA’s World Energy Outlook—which shows an incredible growth in renewable energy—especially solar power—and yet a rapidly narrowing window to cut emissions fast enough to reach net zero by mid-century, and the risk of an up to 2.4°C increase in global average temperatures above pre-industrial levels.
   
2. UNEP’s 2024 Emissions Gap Report—which shows that nations’ collective emissions reductions are falling far short of what’s needed, putting the world at risk of a temperature increase of 2.6-3.1°C above pre-industrial levels, and underscoring how world leaders are failing their people.
   
3. The 2024 NDC Synthesis Report—which shows, as UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said, “current national climate plans fall miles short of what’s needed.” Even if fully implemented, they would put the world on track for a temperature increase of 2.1 to    2.8 °C this century.
   
4. WMO’s latest GHG Bulletin—which shows that heat-trapping emissions surged to record levels in 2023, with the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reaching 420ppm, a level never previously experienced by humans.
   
5. The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate change—which highlights the stark impacts of climate extremes on human health and the economy, including that heat exposure has led to the loss of 512 billion potential labor hours in 2023, worth $835 billion in potential income losses. Countries ranked low and medium on the Human Development Index faced the worst impacts.

What happens at home matters for the world

My colleagues and I will be on the ground in Baku, closely tracking the climate negotiations and pushing for bold, fair outcomes. UCS, working together with a broad coalition of global civil society partners, participates at COP to help ensure that science and justice are represented in these negotiations and that policymakers hear loud and clear what people need them to do. Of course, what happens back home in countries, the policies that are implemented (or not implemented), will make all the difference in whether nations live up to global climate agreements.

UCS is also working hard at home in the United States, seeking greater ambition in clean energy deployment and a phaseout of fossil fuels, together with investments in climate resilience. And we’re advocating for the US to also live up to its global responsibilities to contribute a fair share of climate finance for low- and middle-income countries.

Unfortunately, climate policy spaces—both domestic and international—are increasingly under siege from fossil fuel interests trying to delay or block progress or secure loopholes that would allow them to continue their business-as-usual practices, expanding fossil fuel production and raking in profits while the climate crisis worsens. Policymakers and courts must hold them to account and dismantle their hold over our energy choices and our climate future. Their influence at COP must also be thwarted.

The next couple of weeks in Baku will undoubtedly be intense. We’ll share more as the negotiations unfold, so please stay tuned.

The housing affordability crisis in the United States is particularly hard for renters. Nearly half of American renters—and over 56% of Black renter households—spend more than 30% of their income in rent. And throughout the country, our longstanding housing shortage and affordability crisis are coming into closer and closer contact with the climate crisis. The United States is short 7.3 million affordable rental homes for those with the lowest incomes—and this summer’s extreme weather and climate disasters have damaged or destroyed many affordable rental units, making them unavailable. The road ahead for all communities affected by fires, floods, and hurricanes this Danger Season is long.

Reducing the harm of eviction post-disaster

In the days and weeks after a disaster, the priority for all levels of government should be meeting people’s immediate needs and stabilizing communities. Households with the lowest incomes are often faced with the risk of losing housing: not only because of physical damage, but also because their livelihoods may be disrupted, making it impossible to pay rent. Some rental agreements will be cancelled after disasters because of damage to units that renders them uninhabitable. Recognizing that many may have lost their livelihoods and belongings in the disaster, in addition to being physically and mentally traumatized, it’s essential for local governments to issue a moratorium on housing evictions post-disaster. The hearing of eviction claims filed just before or after a disaster should not be considered an essential function of the court system. Given that children—particularly Black children—are the single most at-risk group for eviction, reducing the risk and harm of eviction filings now can sow the seeds for a more equitable recovery in the years ahead. 

As response turns to longer-term recovery, landlords may see financial incentives to evict their tenants. After disasters, landlords may issue rent deals or lower income requirements in an effort to attract tenants to complexes that had to close for repairs. While this gets tenants in the door, eventually deals expire, disaster-associated housing assistance ends, and tenants can’t sustain an unaffordable rent, leading to eviction filings. An examination of eviction filings after Hurricane Harvey found that older, more affordable complexes with a history of flooding were the sites of increased eviction filings. Second, as was observed after the 2023 Maui wildfire, as disasters take units offline, landlords may see an opportunity to evict existing tenants and charge new renters higher rates. 

Aside from immediate housing instability and public health impacts, evictions can affect renters for years to come, hurting their credit and limiting future housing opportunities by placing them on tenant blacklists. 

Every state hit by disaster has the ability to request assistance from the federal government and enact its own emergency plan. As part of their emergency powers, governors may issue temporary moratoriums on evictions, as was done early in the COVID19 pandemic, and as many are urging North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper to do in the wake of Hurricane Helene. When hearings resume, courts must resist the urge to hold “rocket dockets”—hearing a high volume of eviction cases in a short period of time—and uphold their obligation to due process, allowing claims to be raised and evidence to be presented.

Renters disproportionately denied emergency aid and undercounted in long-term recovery

After a disaster, renters and homeowners alike are encouraged to submit applications to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) for assistance to address what the federal government calls “unmet needs.” Unmet needs are disaster impacts that survivors aren’t able to address on their own, and are particularly challenging for those with the lowest incomes. Renters are more likely to be denied FEMA assistance than homeowners: according to FEMA’s own analysis of its almost five million aid applications from 2014-2018, poor renters were 23% less likely to receive assistance than wealthier homeowner applicants.

Renters and advocates in climate frontline states like Texas and New Jersey have been raising this issue in courts for over a decade. While FEMA has adopted a proposed rule to simplify the application process and reduce barriers to aid, it has yet to adopt changes that explicitly address the concerns of renters. 

The harm caused by FEMA denials can reverberate for years. Data from successful FEMA applications are used by state and local governments to inform long-term recovery, including the development of new housing.

As recovery from this Danger Season’s disasters continues, local, federal, and state governments must design their response with renters in mind if they want to build long-term resilience and more equitable futures for millions of Americans. We must address the affordable housing crisis for renters through specific policies and investments to encourage building more rental units for the lowest-income families, and ensuring that they are both built to robust standards and located in areas that are more climate-resilient.

We also need a much more proactive, well-funded approach to climate resilience across the nation that goes well beyond post-disaster response and recovery. And we’ve got to make steep cuts in global heat-trapping emissions to limit how much worse fossil-fueled climate disasters get.

The nation is grappling with yet another year of climate change-fueled disasters with billion-dollar price tags, from the extreme heat and wildfires out west and back-to-back hurricanes. At this moment, the last thing federal, state and local governments need is to divert precious resources to debunk baseless conspiracy theories and disinformation. Regrettably, this is where we find ourselves. President Biden, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and state and local government representatives have been busy trying to communicate the truth about the response and recovery efforts related to Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton. Due to the extent of the baseless rumors, FEMA posted a “Hurricane Rumor Response” webpage which helps to nullify the disinformation and provide valuable information.

To help make sense of disaster assistance and FEMA’s role, I provide answers to six questions to help clarify the federal disaster recovery process.

1. What happens when a disaster hits?

The process of how disasters are declared and what happens once they are, may be a bit mysterious but briefly here are a few things to know. The President can issue an emergency declaration or major disaster declaration for a range of disasters, for example climate change-related disasters like Hurricane Milton and Helene and the wildfires in Maui, natural hazards like earthquakes and other incidents like the Baltimore bridge collapse and major societal and public health disruptions like the Covid-19 pandemic. The Stafford Act (officially, the “Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act”) is the law that gives the President the authority to provide disaster response, recovery and preparedness assistance to state, local, tribal, or territorial (SLTT) governments.

An emergency is defined as:

“any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and  capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States”.

A major disaster is defined as:

‘‘any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the  efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.”

The request for a major disaster declaration comes from the Governor of the state that’s been impacted and signals to the President that the impact is beyond the means of the state’s ability to manage (the process for an emergency declaration is similar):

“(a) In General – All requests for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State. Such a request shall be based on a finding that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary.” “Based on the request of a Governor under this section, the President may declare under this Act that a major disaster or emergency exists.” [see Sec. 401. Procedure for Declaration (42 U.S.C. 5170)].

Once the President provides the declaration, authorities are delegated to FEMA and FEMA will utilize the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) to release federal assistance to the SLTT governments in need.

2. What is the Disaster Relief Fund?

FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is the federal government’s primary source of funding for disaster response, recovery and preparedness. Congress provides appropriations annually to the fund and often provides supplemental funding when disasters mount and costs begin to drain the available funds. The fund primarily supports major disaster needs for FEMA’s direct disaster programs and a small portion is dedicated to support FEMA’s readiness activities.

FEMA’s direct disaster programs include public assistance (PA), individual assistance (IA) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Briefly, PA provides funds for large projects like repairing critical infrastructure and debris removal. IA is a source of funding for individuals and households. Individuals can receive immediate assistance with a one-time $750 cash payment for emergency supplies. An individual or family can also receive additional funds under IA by registering with FEMA to help pay for repairs to homes that have been damaged by storms, personal property replacement and for temporary housing. The HMGP is a pot of funding to help reduce future losses through preparedness activities. A major disaster declaration makes all three disaster programs available to impacted communities while an emergency declaration releases both public and individual assistance programs.

The Stafford Act requires SLTT governments to share the disaster relief responsibility by covering 25 percent of the cost. FEMA provides the remaining 75 percent. If the disaster is particularly devastating, the President may lower or waive the cost share altogether.

After much public advocacy to reduce future impacts and invest in preparedness, in 2018 Congress passed critical legislation that established the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities “BRIC” grant program to allow the President to set aside 6 percent of the DRF specifically for pre-disaster, preparedness and resilience efforts. Under BRIC, FEMA prioritizes innovative, equitable and nature-based infrastructure projects. For example, communities can use funds to  increase energy resilience while also reducing emissions by advancing energy efficiency and microgrids, for example. As one of the FEMA programs under Justice40, FEMA ensures a minimum of 40 percent of the benefits are targeted to historically disadvantaged communities. FEMA also prioritizes funds for other critical resilience activities that are often underprioritized such as implementing building codes and conserving and restoring wetlands and dunes.

3. Is FEMA the sole federal agency available for disaster response and recovery?

FEMA has the lead authority for disaster response and recovery (under the Stafford and the Homeland Security Acts). The Presidential Policy Directive on National Preparedness provided a coordinated “whole of government” disaster assistance approach that includes thirty federal agencies. Other federal agencies provide rebuilding and longer-term recovery support under their own authority and Congressional appropriations or FEMA’s “mission assignments” in which it will reimburse agencies for specific efforts.

For example, the US Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) has its own authority under the Flood Control Act and Coastal Emergencies law to provide disaster preparedness services to reduce the amount of damage caused by an impending disaster. After hurricanes or other disasters, the Corps will often provide emergency power, critical infrastructure inspections and debris management under its own authority. The Corps also fulfills FEMA’s Operation Blue Roof mission assignment to help owners with temporary roof repairs.  

Many of the other critical federal programs that individuals and communities rely on after a disaster are dependent upon Congressional supplemental funding. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grant program provides flexible funds to disaster impacted areas, particularly low-income communities, to help people and neighborhoods rebuild after a disaster. The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides low-interest loans for disaster assistance to homeowners, businesses, non-governmental organizations and renters.

4. How is the Disaster Relief Fund funded and what happens when it runs low?

Congress appropriates funding annually to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). Unfortunately, the DRF  typically runs low before September 30th, the end of the Fiscal Year (FY) even though FEMA (as mandated by Congress) provides monthly DRF status reports and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides seasonal outlooks, such as the Atlantic hurricane season that predicted an above-normal 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. Budgeting sufficient funds to the DRF is complicated by the fact that the federal government’s fiscal year ends right in the middle of Danger Season (the months from May to November when we expect an increase in climate change-related events) and because FEMA estimates the DRF budget based on the past ten years rather than proactively estimating future funding needs based on future climate change and development projections. It’s perhaps not surprising then that Congress has provided the majority of DRF funding through the often last minute, politically fraught supplemental appropriations.

During these times, the FEMA administrator is sometimes forced to place the DRF under Immediate Needs Funding (INF) restrictions, which is a last-resort measure that delays distributing obligated funds to communities for large recovery projects and instead applies these funds for immediate disaster response, lifesaving and life-sustaining efforts. According to FEMA, since 2001, the agency has implemented INF restrictions 9 times, including last year. This puts unnecessary stress on FEMA, which is already spread thin particularly during Danger Season. Congress must do better to provide FEMA with sufficient funding to respond to risk in a timely and equitable way before Danger Season starts (More on this in question 6).

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/state-summary/US 5. Are disaster costs rising and if so, why?

Yes. Unfortunately, disaster costs have been steadily rising.

Already this year, the President has declared 117 disasters, 87 of which have been major disaster declarations (compared with 71 major disaster declarations in 2023, 47 in 2022, 58 in 2021 and 104 in 2020). Before the devastating Hurricanes Helene and Milton, NOAA estimated (as of September 10, 2024), that in 2024 there were 20 separate billion-dollar climate change-related disasters that collectively contributed to the deaths of 149 people with a total economic cost of $53 billion.

Sadly, we know that the lives lost and costs of damages for this year are only going to increase as states begin to tally damages from Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton and as we wait out the rest of the Atlantic hurricane and wildfire seasons. Last year, we experienced 28 separate billion-dollar disasters which resulted in over $93 billion in damages.

While 2022 had fewer billion-dollar disasters (18), it was a record-setting year for the cost of damages with a total cost of $165 billion. That made 2022 the 3rd most costly year on record behind 2017, when Hurricane Harvey landed as a Category 4 storm, and 2005 when Hurricane Katrina landed as a Category 5 storm.

We’re seeing how climate change is reaching more and more communities leaving no one untouched and having lasting impacts, especially on low-income communities, communities of color, and Tribal communities, due to both their proximity to hazard-prone areas and lack of adequate infrastructure and/or disaster management resources.

In brief, the unfortunate recipe for these increasing costs is threefold:

1. We’re putting more and more buildings and people in harm’s way
2. These buildings and assets aren’t built to modern building codes, and some infrastructure was built 50 to 100 years ago, and
3. Climate change amped by fossil fuels is increasing the likelihood of intense hurricanes, heaviest rainfall events and extreme wildfires, for example

Climate change is also increasing the chances of multiple climate hazards occurring simultaneously or consecutively across the US—meaning there’s less time between disasters. According to Climate Central, over the last 5 years there were 16 days on average between US billion-dollar disasters, compared with 82 days in the 1980s. In 2023, that number shrank to just 12 days between disasters. This is significant, as having less time between disasters has major implications the amount of time and resources federal and SLTT governments have available to respond, recover quickly, and prepare for future risks.

6. What can we do?

First and foremost, we must reduce heat-trapping emissions. The sobering reality is that people everywhere are feeling the impacts of a warming world. We need all levels of government and the private sector to turn the dial down on global warming by rapidly reducing heat trapping emissions. The latest science shows that, globally, heat-trapping emissions must be cut by about half by 2030 and reach net zero no later than 2050 to have a fighting chance of keeping the 1.5C goal alive.

Second, while it’s not likely that Congress will come up with a new way to respond to disasters in the near term, there’s a lot Congress can and must do in the near-term. As Colt Hagmaier, FEMA’s Assistant Administrator of the Recovery Directorate within the Office of Response and Recovery (ORR) said: “Restoring hope doesn’t happen by chance but by action and individual commitment to humanity.”  Congress should:

1. Anticipate the likely need for more funding ahead of Danger Season and be ready to provide supplemental appropriations when the FEMA administrator requests additional funding for the DRF. Disasters affect all states—red and blue—so this should not devolve into a lengthy partisan fight while people on the frontlines of disasters wait and suffer,
2. Provide supplemental funding and permanently authorize HUDs CDBG-DR program, which is often the only lifeline for low-income families and communities post-disaster.
3. Work in a bipartisan fashion to reform the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by, at a minimum, modernizing and funding flood risk mapping, incentivizing flood risk disclosure, providing innovation and resources for flood risk mitigation and provide FEMA with the authority to offer affordable flood insurance to those who can least afford it.

Third, while FEMA can be commended for advancing reforms to its disaster assistance grant programs, there’s no shortage of additional actions the agency can take. FEMA should:

1. Adjust their funding requests based on future climate projections instead of averaging the costs over the past ten years.
2. Utilize its authority to include advisory layers on flood maps based on future climate change projections.
3. Modernize the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards which haven’t been updated in 50 years.
4.  Systematically increase and broaden its staff to ensure the agency has the expertise it needs to improve upon Justice40 and other equity goals in addition to being able to manage the increasing complexities that come with the climate crisis.

We need bipartisan action

My heart is heavy as I think of the communities hit by these record-breaking disasters because we know that recovery from a devastating hurricane, wildfire or any disaster is long and arduous.

While UCS will continue to push for reforms to current federal policies and advocate for new federal disaster recovery policies, the good news is that we’re not alone in these efforts. For example, at the national level, the Disaster Housing Recovery Coalition (DHRC) under the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) brings together 850 national, state, and local organizations to help disaster-impacted communities recover.

We have the solutions; we urgently need bipartisan actions at all levels of government to help give people the change they want to see.

It is mind-bog-gling, syllable pun intended, that scientists still do not know how many wetlands lost protection in last year’s crippling of the Clean Water Act by the Supreme Court. A new peer-reviewed study in the journal Science said the range of possible protection loss is between a fifth of nontidal wetlands to nearly all of them.

Lead author Adam Gold, a watershed researcher for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the wild uncertainty is because the court arbitrarily created a new standard for federal protection divorced from the science of how wetlands support larger streams, rivers, lakes and the ocean.

The Sackett case involved an Idaho couple who sued after the Environmental Protection Agency stopped their backfilling of a lot near a lake to build a home. The court was unanimous in saying that in the case of that couple, the EPA overstepped its authority. But a 5-4 conservative majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, a long-time skeptic of both EPA authority, and what constitutes any kind of pollution, went a fateful extra step.

Alito famously said that carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, a key contributor to global warming, is not a pollutant. That is despite studies tying carbon dioxide to skyrocketing rates of childhood asthma. A 2011 study in the journal Asthma and Allergy, said the parallel increase of global asthma and carbon dioxide emissions is “remarkable.” There is evidence linking elevated carbon dioxide to longer pollen seasons.

On wetlands, Alito’s razor-thin majority instituted an “eyeball” test. The court said a wetland merits federal protection only if it is “indistinguishable” from larger waters, evidenced by a “continuous surface connection” to them.

An American Bittern on the Outer Banks in North Carolina, where wetlands are under constant threat of development. Photo by Derrick Z. Jackson. Court Rejects Decades of Science

The ruling was hailed by industrial and agricultural polluters and developers. Groups that filed briefs against the EPA’s authority included the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Home Builders. The Chamber of Commerce said the ruling put an end to a  “tortured definition” of water protection that “threatened to strangle projects with years of red tape.”

But the court’s tortured institution of a visual test for continuous water in wetlands rejected decades of federal wetlands science, much of it conducted under the administrations of Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama.

Federal reports found that all types and sizes of nontidal wetlands, that is places without visible, continuous surface connections, still serve critical downstream ecosystem functions. Some are seemingly far from large bodies of water. In others, water flows into underground aquifers. In others still, the soil is saturated but surface water is visible for only part of the year.

And then there are ephemeral streams that run only during rainfalls. A 2008 EPA report published during the Bush administration said, “Given their importance and vast extent, it is concluded that an individual ephemeral or intermittent stream segment should not be examined in isolation.”

Years later, a 2015 EPA report published during the Obama administration said, “All tributary streams, including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams are physically, chemically, and biologically connected to downstream rivers.” It emphasized there is “ample evidence that many wetlands and open waters located outside of riparian areas and floodplains, even when lacking surface water connections, provide physical, chemical, and biological functions that could affect the integrity of downstream waters. Some potential benefits of these wetlands are due to their isolation rather than their connectivity.”

That left Gold with the unenviable task of trying to fit a square peg of data into the round hole of nonsense—that one must see water in a wetland for it to be wet enough to be a wetland. Basically, he found out that any future permitting disputes between developers and federal agencies, especially for inland, nontidal wetlands, will likely depend on legal decisions of “wetness.”

For instance, if just geographically isolated wetlands were removed from protection, that would amount to 19% of the nation’s 90 million acres of nontidal wetlands. If a court ruled that a wetland must be flooded for more than a month during the growing season, that would knock out 61% of wetlands from federal protection. If a wetland needed to be semi-permanently flooded, that would remove 91% of acreage from protection.

“I was surprised by the uncertainty,” Gold said in a telephone interview. “A reason it is so hard to determine is because the language used by the court is neither scientific nor objective.” He said the high court’s insistence on a ‘continuous surface connection’ as a condition for protection “are subjective words that are not defined by anything related to how wetlands work. If we start parsing out wetland protection by how ‘wet’ they are, it is highly unclear where this all ends up.”

Wetlands Are Environmental Heavyweights

What we do know is that wetlands are an underrated champion of the environment, the economy and climate mitigation, despite representing less than 6% of land in the contiguous United States. Wetlands are the nurseries for commercial and recreational fisheries, which generated $321 billion and supported 2.3 million jobs in 2022, according to a report last year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Along with anglers, wetlands are the critical backdrop for hunters and wildlife watchers, who spent $400 billion in 2022, according to a report last year by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Shorebirds enjoy feasting in the muck of the Hackensack Meadowlands. Wetland habitat is critical for shorebirds, which are experiencing some of the fastest declines in the avian world. Photo by Derrick Z. Jackson.

Yet, the nation is losing ground on wetlands. A report this year by the US Fish and Wildlife Service found between 2009 and 2019, the nation lost enough acreage of forest and scrub wetlands to equal the size of Rhode Island. That cannot happen when so many studies also show how wetlands are a carbon sink.

Globally, wetlands such as peatlands, mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass meadows cover 6% of the world’s surface. But they sequester a third of the world’s organic ecosystem carbon. A 2022 study in the journal Science said the function of wetlands as a climate workhorse makes preserving them a matter of “utmost importance.”

Losing so many acres of wetlands also cannot happen when the EPA says wetlands are “biological supermarkets” for insects and small fish that are feasted on by larger creatures: fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. The agency says wetlands are the sole home for more than a third of the nation’s threatened and endangered species. Nearly half of threatened and endangered species dine in, or seek shelter in, wetlands during their lives.

It also cannot happen when wetlands literally save property and lives by being buffers against winds and storm surges. A 2020 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that wetland losses in Florida between 1996 and 2016 resulted in an additional $430 million in property damage from Hurricane Irma in 2017.

A 2021 study in the journal Global Environmental Change found that globally coastal wetlands save $447 billion in damages and 4,620 lives a year. A 2019 study in the journal of Marine and Freshwater Research found that the world’s wetlands deliver $47 trillion a year in ecosystem services. The prime ones are erosion and flood control, waste treatment, water purification, recreation, and tourism.

The Hackensack Meadowlands in New Jersey, from which New York City skyscrapers are visible. The buffering effect of the wetlands spared many communities in the area the worst of flooding from Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Photo by Derrick Z. Jackson. States Offer Unwieldy Checkerboard of Wetland Protections

None of those wetland benefits registered with the Supreme Court majority that now demands an “eyeball” test of surface water to determine if a wetland is a wetland. Such a test leaves protection to the mercy of the states.

An analysis by the Environmental Law Institute found that 24 states do not independently protect their wetlands, relying completely on the Clean Water Act. The map of the states with no protections and those with their own protections closely mirrors the red and blue maps of presidential elections. Most states in the South and the Great Plains have no protections, thus leaving their wetlands at the highest risk of destruction (though notable exceptions include the Everglades wetlands in Florida and prairie pothole wetlands in Minnesota).

None of that makes sense when everyone (except perhaps five members of the Supreme Court) knows that pollution from one state can easily travel downstream into another state. Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who this year voted in a 5-4 majority to block EPA rules to limit power plant and industrial pollution from crossing state lines, joined the court’s three liberals, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in saying the new test of a “continuous surface connection” raises all kinds of questions.

“How does that test apply to the many kinds of wetlands that typically do not have a surface water connection to a covered water year-round—for example, wetlands and waters that are connected for much of the year but not in the summer when they dry up to some extent?” Kavanaugh wrote. “How ‘temporary’ do ‘interruptions in surface connection’ have to be for wetlands to still be covered?

“How does the test operate in areas where storms, floods, and erosion frequently shift or breach natural river berms? Can a continuous surface connection be established by a ditch, swale, pipe, or culvert?”

That is why Adam Gold found it so hard to come up with a firm number of how many wetlands have lost protection. “No one likes uncertainty,” Gold said. “Not the regulators, not the permit applicants, not the scientists…. It is very clear what a wetland is. But now it’s unclear what protections they have.”  

That is because for the majority of the Supreme Court, a wetland where the water is out of sight is a wetland out of mind.

In August, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued its updated forecast for the 2024 hurricane season. It was to be above normal in every regard: more named storms and stronger hurricanes than usual. One of the main reasons for this forecast? Significantly warmer than usual surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean, which come largely as a result of human-caused climate change. 

Despite a quiet peak hurricane season in August and early September, 2024 will be a year to remember. In late June, Beryl became the earliest Category 5 hurricane in recorded Atlantic history. And in just the last two weeks, we’ve observed two powerful hurricanes develop in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico: Hurricanes Helene and Milton.  

Helene made landfall in the Big Bend region of Florida as a Category 4 hurricane and brought torrential rain and wind to North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Virginia. Less than two weeks later, Milton made landfall near Sarasota, Florida as a Category 3 hurricane, knocking out power to nearly 3.5 million people throughout the central part of the state. Fossil fuel-caused climate change was a driving force in these storms, and despite the nearly perfect forecasts, we are still not ready for the effects of climate change. 

More hurricanes are rapidly intensifying because of climate change—Milton included

Both Helene and Milton underwent periods of rapid intensification, defined as a strengthening in winds of at least 35 mph in a 24-hour period, which were fueled by ocean temperatures nearly 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal for this time of year.  

The footprint of global warming caused by heat-trapping pollutants is undeniable: according to the Climate Shift Index (CSI) from Climate Central, the warmer surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico were made 400-800 times more likely due to climate change. In fact, Helene and Milton’s rapid intensification rates are part of a larger trend in the Atlantic Ocean, where rapidly strengthening hurricanes have increased significantly since 1982 as a result of warmer waters. 

In particular, Hurricane Milton was a storm for the record books. The hurricane went from a Category 1 hurricane to a Category 5 hurricane in just 18 hours, making it the second fastest strengthening storm in Atlantic recorded history after Hurricane Wilma in 2005. After its jaw-dropping rapid intensification, Milton became the fourth most intense hurricane in the Atlantic basin since 1979, and the second most intense hurricane this late in the calendar year (for my fellow weather weenies, we remember Wilma’s record intensity in late October of 2005 like it was yesterday). 

Why are the oceans so warm and fueling this rapid intensification? The oceans have absorbed 93 percent of the extra heat trapped by increased heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere. The world’s burning of fossil fuels has raised global average temperatures significantly, with 2024 on track to be the warmest year on record. Not only were the ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean near record levels, but the ocean heat content in the Gulf of Mexico—the fuel for hurricanes to rapidly intensify—was at a record high. 

As the world continues to warm, hurricanes will become more intense; in fact, a rapid attribution analysis demonstrated that storms like Milton will become 40 percent more common due to human-caused climate change. Hurricanes Milton and Helene are merely a sign of the devastation that will become more common. 

Global warming led to Helene’s extreme rainfall

After undergoing rapid intensification, Hurricane Helene made landfall in the Big Bend region of Florida as a Category 4 hurricane on the evening of September 26. Helene was the 8th Category 4 or 5 hurricane to make landfall in the US since 2017, which is the same number of Category 4 and 5 landfalls over the previous 57 years!  

While Floridian communities were affected by the strong winds and storm surge from Helene, Southern Appalachia—a region far inland from the coast—received record amounts of rainfall, which led to historic landslides and flooding not seen since the Great Flood of 1916. While rescue efforts are ongoing, nearly 230 deaths have been attributed to Helene, making it one of the deadliest US landfalling hurricanes since 1950.  

According to rapid climate attribution studies, human-caused climate change contributed significantly to Helene’s extreme rainfall. One study found that global warming may have caused 50 percent of the rainfall observed during Hurricane Helene. How is this possible? 

 Think of the atmosphere like a sponge: as the world warms due to additional heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere, the sponge will become bigger, allowing the sponge (atmosphere) to hold more water and carry it from the oceans further inland. 

Helene’s rainfall is a sign of what is to come in the future as the planet continues to warm. In the meantime, my colleague, Alicia Race, wrote an excellent blogpost on how you can help the ongoing Helene relief efforts. 

Humanity is not prepared for the climate we’ve created 

Milton and Helene were historic and unprecedented hurricanes. They both brought destruction and death to communities here in the US and were made worse by the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, these types of storms will become more common in the future as the planet continues to warm. 

A silver lining here is that weather forecasting models, which are used to predict the intensity and path of hurricanes, nailed the forecasts for Helene and Milton. In fact, the National Hurricane Center’s (NHC) first forecast for Milton showed it making landfall only 12 miles north of where Milton made landfall four days later! 

On one the hand, it’s a good thing that the NHC, with its suite of weather models, could predict these unprecedented storms fueled by climate change, and partly because of this, people in coastal areas were asked to evacuate in advance. But despite the ample warning, we still lost many lives to these storms, especially in mountainous, inland areas with spotty Internet and cell services as well as limited evacuation infrastructure and experience with hurricanes.  

In a world with global warming, despite forecasts being nearly perfect, lives are being lost because we’re experiencing storms of unprecedented severity. How was a family in western North Carolina supposed to respond to a rainfall forecast of 15 inches of rain? Were they expected to know a landslide or flood would affect their home? The science is sound, but the nearly perfect forecasts can only do so much. My colleague Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director of the Climate and Energy Program, has this to say on the implications of stronger storms in the future:  

“Continuing to invest in NOAA’s science, data, and tools is crucial. And even with the best warning systems, we know there are many socioeconomic barriers to people being able to get to safety and recover from the devastation of storms like Helene and Milton. Not having enough money for a hotel room or gas for your car; being worried about losing your job if you miss work; having a disability or a health condition that makes it difficult to evacuate; having to flee with young children—these kinds of factors often force people to make tough decisions about whether they can leave or are trapped in place. And after disasters, those with the least resources—who may not have insurance or may be living in flood-prone areas in mobile homes, for example—often have the most difficult time getting back on their feet. Addressing these challenges in an equitable way is crucial if we are to limit the human toll of extreme climate disasters.” 

The hurricane forecasting models are sound. Now lawmakers must catch up and pass policies that reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and drastically cut heat-trapping emissions. 

For more on other harmful aspects of Project 2025, see this blog. 

The Heritage Foundation’s blueprint—Project 2025—to dramatically alter the US Environmental Protection Agency should concern you. It does me. 

This summer my family vacationed in Vancouver, BC, Canada where we had the good fortune of going on a whale watching trip and seeing majestic orcas. I’ll never forget witnessing how a family moved around hunting their prey—sea lions—and celebrated by springing out of the water.

The trained marine biologist guides shared that water pollution in the Pacific Ocean and local bay have contributed to the population’s decline, and they talked about what is being done to improve it. As it turns out, most orcas’ first-borns are miscarried. Why? Because they sit at the top of the food chain, and the toxic load in their systems needs to be expelled somehow. Nature has created a system, through their offspring, to expunge it.  

This made me think of the increasing numbers of people of all ages in my life and in communities across the country suffering from diseases linked to toxic chemicals. PFAS is shorthand for a class of “forever chemicals” that persist in the environment indefinitely. This, along with many other chemicals, like diesel particulates and ground-level ozone that form soot and smog, and metals like lead in paint and drinking water, are regulated by the EPA to keep us safe. Project 2025 takes aim at all those protections.  

Dismantling the EPA

The Blueprint would institute a major reorganization at the EPA that would slash full time positions, cut entire departments and programs deemed “duplicative, wasteful or superfluous.” Parts of EPA that historically had been run by career experts would instead be run by political appointees making decisions based on ideology, rather than science.  

Further, the Blueprint calls for rotating headquarters senior executives to regions in several places. And, there is the overarching specter of the next administration working to implement a new category of executive, Schedule F, and moving many existing staff into it, stripping them of their civil service protections, undermining career civil servants who provide continuity of leadership and allow the next administration to replace them with political appointments. If you’ve ever lived through a major shift in management, you know how much it affects the organization’s ability to deliver on the mission—and in the case of the EPA, that mission is crucial to protecting the health of people across the nation. This transition plan would be moving not only desks, but floors, ceilings, windows, and fire exits.  

Project 2025 takes aim at grants, as well. Grants are an important tool that agencies have used for decades to support environmental progress, such as for cleaning up waterways and contaminated land from legacy pollution, delivering safe drinking water, and limiting air pollution.  

For one thing, many regulatory functions are delegated to the state, tribal, and local levels. It shifts management of the office that oversees grants administration to a political appointee whose motivations would no doubt be more about political expediency than fiscal responsibility.  

It also suggests that funds going to nonprofits that support implementation of laws, especially in places where there are disproportionately high concentrations of pollution, such as from vehicle emissions or industrial activities, should instead be given to states. A move like this would erode the ability of civil society to participate in every level of government’s processes, all of which depend on meaningful involvement from the people to have durability.  

Race Forward, a racial justice nonprofit, suggests that this is part of a much larger agenda to undermine administrative government and offers a Toolkit with suggestions of what could be done about it.  

Science at risk

Almost all of EPA’s core work to help protect our health and the environment requires science and legal analysis to set a strong, fact-based foundation for its actions. Much of this could grind to a halt if the next administration follows through on the plan’s suggestion to narrowly and harmfully limit the science EPA can do under laws passed by Congress.

Instead of allowing the agency’s scientific experts to determine how best to conduct science that would help meet laws, Project 2025 imposes a requirement that all science itself must be explicitly congressionally mandated. And the plan takes specific aim at the standards for critical air pollutants that are covered by under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards—ones—that were specifically driven by science—suggesting that somehow, Congress would have the expertise or the time to set up the rigorous scientific processes that it would take to update these national standards at the frequency required to keep the public safe.  

Project 2025 also calls for EPA’s Science Advisory Board and other advisory bodies to be reformed to “ensure independence, balance, transparency, and geographic diversity.”  This suggestion is puzzling when you consider that EPA’s advisory committees are already made up of the country’s foremost experts from a variety of sectors. And let’s not forget who drafted the blueprint: people from the oil and gas, chemical and other industries. Adding their favored representatives with potential conflicts of interest to a process set up to protect the public interest is problematic.  

Alarmingly, the notion of scientific integrity itself, which people from all political affiliations should support, is also under fire. The blueprint recommends shifting responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from EPA’s Office of Scientific Integrity to an unnamed “independent body.”  

Human health on the chopping block

Remember the “forever chemicals” that are known carcinogens? EPA recently passed drinking water standards to protect 100 million people from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, contamination for the first time ever. The designation of PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances” would be revisited through Project 2025. That’s despite the fact that these substances not only cause cancer but are also associated with liver and immune system damage, among other things. 

According to Breathing Easy, a recent assessment by the Environmental Protection Network,  the ten air pollution rules issued since 2021 with “the most significant quantified health impacts” would prevent:  

• 202,632 all-cause premature mortalities.  

• 107 million symptomatic asthma incidents.  

• 94 million minor-restricted activity days. 

Project 2025 calls for all of these regulations to be reexamined. I’m not sure about you, but I am grateful that EPA is doing its job so that my kids and I can spend more time outdoors without fear of shortening our lifespans or suffering respiratory distress.   

What’s more, when one pollutant is reduced, there are other benefits associated, and EPA used these associated benefits as a way to justify appropriately strong health-based safeguards. Moving forward, in making the case for stronger standards for any pollutants, the “co-benefits” of regulating a pollutant would be separated out from the cost-benefit analysis that accompanies regulatory packages. In other words, the cost to industry to reduce their emissions would show up much greater than any overall societal benefit of reducing pollution.  

In addition, the Project 2025 recommendations would weaken public health safeguards by prohibiting the EPA from using studies to set regulations unless the underlying raw data, which would include private medical records, is revealed. Recall that for privacy reasons, health data is kept confidential, and is only available aggregated at the county level, at best. Scientists often model localized risks. If this data is precluded, the EPA would likely wind up with much weaker regulations that would benefit polluters—presumably the intent of this proposal. The communities that suffer the most pollution tend to be those that are low-income and communities of color.  

Together with all of the cuts to limits on the production of hazardous chemicals, in other pollution permit limits, and in environmental standards, it is clear that the plan compromises human health. Yet, the Blueprint names remediation as “core,” and continues support for related programs. So, the authors recognize that pollution is harmful, but it is a problem for another day—for our children and their children to deal with. Not to mention that history shows that environmental cleanup is much more costly, and usually incomplete.  

Climate change

EPA has been a key agency to help cut greenhouse gases contributing to human-caused climate change and its harmful impacts on people and the environment. Oil and gas industry backed “scientists” who contest the scientific consensus have been engaged in a disinformation and misinformation campaign that unfortunately is slowing down important action.  

If the people who wrote this Blueprint were given prominent positions at the EPA, they would surely seek to overturn EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger public health and the environment, which was critical to allowing EPA to regulate GHGs. If anything, since the original 2009 Endangerment Finding was issued, the science on climate change has only become more dire, as have the observed impacts of costly and harmful climate damages.  

Perhaps because overturning this finding, which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, could be challenging if not impossible, Project 2025 also calls on the next administration to reconsider all the regulations that reduce GHGs, including vehicle and power plants standards. 

In addition, the EPA should revise or scrap the social cost of carbon (SCC), according to the Blueprint. The SCC is the accepted estimate made by experts in dollars, of the economic damages that result from emitting one additional ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is a central piece of the economics to substantiate the cost of regulations today when it is future generations who will bear the brunt of inaction.  

The Blueprint also recommends that the EPA greatly reduce the number of industries required to report their GHG emissions. As the EPA explains: This data can be used by businesses and others to track and compare facilities’ greenhouse gas emissions, identify opportunities to cut pollution, minimize wasted energy, and save money. States, cities, and other communities can use EPA’s greenhouse gas data to find high-emitting facilities in their area, compare emissions between similar facilities, and develop common-sense climate policies. In addition, without this data, it would be it extremely hard to report whether the United States has met its emissions reduction commitments under the Paris climate agreement. 

All in all, Project 2025 would undermine and decimate an important tool in the US government’s arsenal to protect human health and the environment now and for generations to come. It turns an agency that was set up to prevent pollution into one that can only clean up or remediate it after it’s done its damage.  Everyone in the United States should be taking this document very seriously and speaking out to ensure that none of these recommendations come to pass and none of the authors are put into positions of power to bring about these changes. There is simply too much at stake. 

La Proposición 4 es muy importante para California, y cada persona necesita entenderla bien para estar bien informada para las elecciones de noviembre. Sin embargo, hay poca información en español.

Por eso, cuando Radio Bilingüe me invitó a hablar de los hechos alrededor de Prop 4, sentí que era muy buena oportunidad para darles a nuestras comunidades Latinas de California la información que muchas veces no les llega.

Chelis López y su equipo de Línea Abierta son fantásticos y una buena fuente de información independiente de alta calidad. Las preguntas de Chelis son siempre realmente buenas, aunque admito que a veces son difíciles de responder, así que siempre estudio bastante antes de estas entrevistas. La grabación de mi entrevista (de unos 35 minutos) está disponible online: Proposición 4 de California. Este blog está basado en las preguntas de Chelis y de las notas que tomé para prepararme.

¿Qué es la Proposición 4 y como se encaja en el contexto climático de California?

En el contexto actual de crisis climática, California enfrenta desafíos sin precedentes que afectan a nuestra infraestructura, nuestros recursos naturales, y nuestras comunidades, especialmente aquellas que ya sufren las consecuencias de la desigualdad y la falta de recursos. California tiene un clima Mediterráneo que, como en otras partes del mundo, se está haciendo muy extremo: incendios forestales, olas de calor insoportables, y la escasez de agua potable son algunos de los problemas recurrentes que se han agravado debido al cambio climático.

La Proposición 4 busca abordar estos problemas mediante un bono que financiaría proyectos de resiliencia climática y justicia ambiental.

Las olas de calor extremo se han vuelto más frecuentes y peligrosas. Este año ya se ha quemado aproximadamente el 1% de la superficie de California, lo que está costando miles de millones de dólares de nuestro presupuesto estatal. Y la sequía siempre nos está acechando.

Aquí en Merced, donde yo vivo, el mes de julio fue como un martillo machacándonos con temperaturas arriba de los 40 grados Celsius (104 °F) día tras día tras día… Como dice mi amigo Tom que vive en Merced desde hace 25 años, “cuando me mudé a vivir aquí, un par de semanas en verano eran insoportables; ahora hay un par de semanas en verano que son soportables.” Eso es un claro reflejo de las consecuencias del cambio climático.

Estos fenómenos ponen en riesgo a las personas y sobrecargan a las comunidades desfavorecidas que, en muchos casos, no poseen la infraestructura que les dé resiliencia climática.

Aquí es donde entra en juego la Proposición 4: un bono que tiene como objetivo financiar medidas preventivas y de infraestructura que mitiguen los efectos del cambio climático en California, enfocándose en las comunidades más vulnerables.

La Propuesta 4: De la respuesta a la prevención

Como dice el refranero, “es mejor prevenir que curar.”

Y eso es lo que busca la Proposición 4: su enfoque es prevenir desastres ambientales en lugar de responder a ellos. Actualmente, el estado gasta enormes cantidades de dinero en incendios e inundaciones después de que ocurren, lo que resulta mucho más costoso que prevenirlos. La Proposición 4 busca cambiar esta dinámica, invirtiendo en infraestructura resiliente que permita a California estar mejor preparada y, por lo tanto, reducir tanto los daños como los costos a largo plazo.

El bono proporcionaría $10.000 millones de dólares en fondos que ayudarán a prevenir incendios forestales, garantizar el acceso a agua potable, y proteger bosques, costas y ecosistemas. Las comunidades desfavorecidas tendrían varias ventajas, incluyendo que 40% de los fondos proporcionen beneficios significativos para estas comunidades.

Inseguridad hídrica en el Valle Central y la Proposición 4

Uno de los problemas más apremiantes en California es la falta de acceso a agua segura, que afecta desproporcionadamente a las comunidades rurales y desfavorecidas. La Proposición 4 asignaría 3.800 millones de dólares para proyectos relacionados con el agua, de los cuales 1.900 millones se destinarían específicamente a mejorar la seguridad hídrica. De ellos, al menos $610 millones serían para agua de beber y $386 millones para proyectos de agua subterránea. Iniciativas de décadas anteriores se centraron más en el agua superficial (como la construcción de represas). La Proposición 4 pone énfasis en la gestión del agua subterránea, la fuente de agua potable de la que dependen el 85% de los californianos.

Los proyectos que se fninanciarían dependen del lugar y de la naturaleza de la necesidad.

Por ejemplo, lugares como la ciudad de San Joaquín en el condado de Fresno, donde el agua de la llave a veces sale negra por causa del manganeso interactuando con el sistema de desinfección, la proposición 4 podría ayudar a filtrar esas impurezas. En lugares como en Livingston en el condado de Merced, en donde el agua está contaminada con un subproducto de un pesticida ya prohibido que es muy tóxico (123-TCP), lo mejor sería crear nuevos pozos o hacer un sistema de filtración de carbono activado.

Foto del agua en la ciudad de San Joaquín, en el condado de Fresno. Fuente: Underrepresented, understudied, underserved: Gaps and opportunities for advancing justice in disadvantaged communities. Prevención de inundaciones y protección contra sequías

Los fondos pueden usarse para financiar la recarga de acuíferos, que es una técnica para que el agua se filtre en el suelo y ayude a garantizar el suministro sostenible de agua limpia para el futuro, especialmente en años más secos. Así podemos prevenir que se sequen nuestros pozos comunitarios y domésticos, y los de los pequeños agricultores.

El Valle Central de California es una de las regiones agrícolas más importantes del mundo, pero es muy vulnerable al cambio climático. Las comunidades rurales en esta región ya están experimentando el impacto devastador de las olas de calor, la sequía y las inundaciones. Las inundaciones de 2023 en Planada (condado de Merced) y otras áreas cercanas son un ejemplo claro de cómo la falta de resiliencia ante el cambio climático y la infraestructura inadecuada para mitigar desastres climáticos está afectando a estas comunidades. La Proposición 4 podría proporcionar fondos para restaurar las llanuras de inundación que permiten que el agua se infiltre de manera natural en el suelo, reduciendo el riesgo de inundaciones en los arroyos que se desbordaron cerca de Planada.

Planada está a unas 10 millas (16 km) de mi casa, mi vecindario también se inundó en las mismas fechas. Sin embargo, no nos afectó tan dramáticamente porque tenemos un parque que está construido por debajo del nivel del suelo. Cuando llueve mucho, en lugar de inundar nuestras casas, se inunda el parque colectando el agua de la tormenta de nuestro vecindario. Ya lo he visto inundado varias veces desde que vivo aquí, mas de una vez por año como media. California necesita más proyectos de infraestructura verde como éste para ayudarnos a adaptarnos al cambio climático y a las inundaciones que está provocando.

Foto del parque multibeneficio cerca de mi casa en Merced. Atrás se ve la estructura que se usa en beisbol, aunque la gente juega más al fútbol aquí. Cuando llueve mucho, en lugar de inundar el vecindario, el agua llena el parque. En esta foto, el agua cubre casi dos metros (6 pies) de profundidad. Es muy bonito, pero asusta, porque si cuando está lleno llueve fuerte de nuevo, es posible que entonces sí que se inunden nuestras casas. El parque cuenta con bombeo para vaciarlo más rápidamente y evitar ese riesgo. Angel S. Fernandez-Bou.

Estos fondos también podrían financiar la creación de este tipo de infraestructura verde, como parques y espacios verdes en áreas propensas a inundaciones, proporcionando múltiples beneficios: protección contra inundaciones, mejora de la calidad del aire, reducción de las islas de calor, y creación de espacios recreativos para la comunidad.

Prevención de incendios forestales y tecnología

La prevención de incendios forestales destructivos es otro componente clave de la Proposición 4 que incluye $1.500 millones para aumentar la resiliencia de los bosques. El bono planea invertir en tecnologías científicas ya probadas, como podrían ser las cámaras infrarrojas y los drones para detectar puntos de calor, además de apoyar programas de manejo forestal y quemas culturales para reducir el combustible que alimenta los incendios. Estas son tecnologías y estrategias probadas, pero necesitan más fondos para implementarse a una escala mayor.

Desolador paisaje creado por los fuegos en el Parque de Yosemite, en la carretera que va de Wawona hacia el Valley de Yosemite. Angel S. Fernandez-Bou.

Aunque el Valle Central no sufre directamente los incendios forestales, las comunidades de la región sufren por la contaminación del aire causada por el humo de los incendios en otras partes del estado. Reducir la incidencia de incendios forestales beneficiaría indirectamente a las personas del Valle Central al mejorar la calidad del aire. Además, la proposición financiaría la creación de centros de resiliencia en comunidades vulnerables, donde las personas podrían refugiarse durante eventos de calor extremo, incendios o contaminación severa del aire.

El sol desde mi jardín en Merced en Junio 2024. El humo de los incendios forestales cubría el cielo, que no tenía ni una nube. Estas imágenes son habituales para los californianos. Angel S. Fernandez-Bou. Las consecuencias de no actuar

Según estudios realizados para la Agencia Federal para el Manejo de Emergencias (FEMA), cada $1 invertido en resiliencia climática en edificios nos ahorra $6 en costos de respuesta a desastres, y otro estudio indica que la inversión en restaurar llanuras de inundacion es como mínimo cinco veces más barata que las reparaciones en respuesta a inundaciones cuando ya han ocurrido. Además, la 4ª Evaluación del Cambio Climático de California estima que, si no se toman medidas, los impactos del cambio climático podrían costarle a California hasta $113.000 millones de dólares al año en las próximas décadas.

Además del costo económico, el cambio climático también cobra un alto precio en vidas humanas. Las olas de calor, las inundaciones y los incendios forestales ya están matando personas en el estado, y sin una acción decisiva, estos eventos extremos solo se volverán más frecuentes y mortales.

Mientras escribo este blog, el huracán Helene se ha convertido en el tercer huracán más mortífero de los Estados Unidos este siglo, después de María en 2017—que azotó mi amado Puerto Rico matando a 3.000 boricuas—y Katrina en 2005— que mató a 1.200 personas. Por lo menos el 50% de la precipitación que ha batido records históricos se puede atribuir al cambio climático inducido por los humanos.

¿Por qué $10.000 millones y cuánto va a costar?

En 2022, el gobernador Gavin Newsom y la Legislatura aprobaran un paquete de gasto para prepararnos y protegernos de los efectos del cambio climático de $54.300 millones que luego fue reducido a $44.600 millones de dólares por recortes presupuestarios. Eso llevó a la cancelación de programas que proveen fondos esenciales para resiliencia.

Este bono cubriría los $10.000 millones de dólares que faltan para poder realizar muchos de los trabajos que ya se habían planeado. Y el bono tiene la ventaja de dar más estabilidad a ciertos programas del gobierno, para que los fondos se distribuyan homogéneamente cuando más se necesiten.

El análisis fiscal indica que el bono costará $400 millones al año, unos $10 por persona al año. Eso significa que el tipo de interés es de 1,2% aproximadamente (unas cinco veces más barato que una hipoteca). Sin embargo, lo más importante es que los costes de los desastres climáticos no los pagarán principalmente las víctimas, sino que entre todos invertiremos en que los desastres tengan impactos mucho menores o no ocurran.

Un voto por el futuro

La Proposición 4 representa una inversión crucial en el futuro de California. Al centrarse en la prevención de desastres y en mejorar la resiliencia de las comunidades más vulnerables, este bono tiene el potencial de proteger tanto a las personas como al medio ambiente, mientras que al mismo tiempo ahorra miles de millones de dólares en costos futuros. Cuanto más tardemos en actuar, más caro será reparar los daños causados por el cambio climático.

En una época en la que los efectos del cambio climático ya son palpables, la Proposición 4 ofrece una oportunidad para construir un futuro más equitativo y seguro para todos los californianos.

Por eso es extremadamente importante que cada persona se informe de los hechos y se proteja de la desinformación, para que puedan decidir libremente con su voto qué es lo que más nos conviene a todos.

Para acabar, quiero compartir esta foto del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Merced. Algunos programas de la Proposición 4 pueden ayudar a transformar parte de las tierras degradadas que no tienen agua para irrigación en humedales naturales y hábitat para proteger nuestra salud pública y ambiental, y que nuestro Valle se vea como era hace dos siglos. Angel S. Fernandez-Bou

Proposition 4 is a critical water and wildfire bond for California, and all Californians should understand it well to make an informed decision in the November elections. However, there are many people who don’t know about it yet.

That’s why, when Radio Bilingüe invited me to talk about the facts surrounding Prop 4, I felt it was a good opportunity to provide Californians, especially Spanish speaking residents of the Central Valley, with information they often don’t receive.

Chelis López and her Línea Abierta team are fantastic and a reliable source of independent, high-quality information. Chelis asks excellent questions, and I admit I study before her interviews.

If you understand Spanish, you can listen to my interview (about 35 minutes long) online: Proposición 4 de California. This blog post is based on Chelis’ questions and the notes I took to prepare for our conversation.

What is Proposition 4 and how does it fit in California’s Climate Context?

In today’s climate crisis, California is facing unprecedented challenges that affect our infrastructure, natural resources, and communities, especially those already suffering from inequality and underinvestment. California has a Mediterranean climate, which, like other parts of the world, is becoming more extreme: wildfires, unbearable heat waves, and water shortages are just a few of the recurring problems that have worsened due to climate change.

Proposition 4 seeks to address these problems through a bond that would fund water and wildfire resilience and environmental justice projects.

Extreme heat waves have become more frequent and dangerous. This year alone, about 1% of California’s land area has already burned, costing billions of dollars from our state budget. Here in Merced, where I live, July felt like a hammer pounding us with temperatures above 104°F (40°C) day after day after day for about 6 or 7 weeks. As my friend Tom who has lived in Merced for 25 years says, “When I moved here, a couple of weeks in the summer were unbearable; now there are only a couple of weeks in the summer that are bearable.” This reflects the consequences of climate change.

Extreme heat puts people at risk and burdens disadvantaged communities that often lack the infrastructure for climate resilience. This is where Proposition 4 comes into play: a bond aimed at funding infrastructure to mitigate the effects of climate change in California, with a focus on the most vulnerable communities.

Proposition 4: from response to prevention

As the saying goes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

And that’s exactly what Proposition 4 aims to do: preventing environmental disasters rather than responding to them. Currently, the state spends enormous amounts of money on fires and floods after they occur, which is much more expensive than prevention. Proposition 4 seeks to change this dynamic by investing in resilient infrastructure that better prepares California, thus reducing both damage and long-term costs.

The bond provides $10 billion in funds that will help prevent wildfires, guarantee access to clean water, and protect forests, coasts, and ecosystems. Disadvantaged communities have specific advantages, including 40% of the bond that should be invested in meaningful benefits for these communities.

Water insecurity in the Central Valley and Proposition 4

One of California’s most pressing problems is the lack of access to safe water, which disproportionately affects rural and disadvantaged communities. Proposition 4 would allocate almost $3.8 billion for water-related projects, including $1.9 billion allocated for improving water security. Unlike previous initiatives that focused more on surface water (like building dams), this proposal emphasizes groundwater management, the main source of drinking water for 85% of Californians.

Funded projects would depend on the location and the nature of the need.

In places like the city of San Joaquin in Fresno County, the tap water sometimes comes out black due to high concentrations of manganese reacting with the disinfection system. Proposition 4 could help fund the water provider to filter those impurities. In places like Livingston in Merced County, where the water is contaminated with an extremely toxic byproduct of a now-banned pesticide (123-TCP), the best solution would be to create new wells or install an activated carbon filtration system. Proposition 4 provides additional funding specifically for communities like these to have safe and clean water.

Water in the city of San Joaquin, Fresno County. It is polluted with high concentrations of manganese that reacts with the chlorine from the disinfection treatment and creates black water out of the tap. Photos from Underrepresented, understudied, underserved: Gaps and opportunities for advancing justice in disadvantaged communities. Flood prevention and drought protection

The funds from Prop 4 could finance aquifer recharge. This is a key technique to ensure water naturally filters into the ground, refilling underground wells and ensuring a sustainable supply of clean water for the future, especially in dry years. This would help prevent community wells, domestic wells, and small farmers’ wells from drying up.

California’s Central Valley is one of the most important agricultural regions in the world but is highly vulnerable to climate change. Rural communities in this region are already experiencing the devastating impact of heat waves, drought, and floods. The 2023 floods in Planada and other nearby areas are a clear example of how a lack of climate resilience and inadequate disaster-mitigation infrastructure is affecting these communities. Proposition 4 could provide funding to restore floodplains, which allow water to naturally seep into the ground, reducing the risk of floods in streams that overflowed near Planada.

Funds from Prop 4 could also finance the creation of parks and green spaces in flood-prone areas, providing multiple benefits: flood protection, improved air quality, reduced urban heat islands, and recreational spaces for the community.

When Planada flooded, my neighborhood also flooded. However, it didn’t affect us because we have a park built below street level. When it rains a lot, instead of flooding our homes, the park floods and collects storm water. I’ve seen it flood several times in the last couple of years. California needs more green infrastructure like this to help mitigate and adapt to changing flood conditions.

The multibenefit park near my home in Merced. In the background, you can see the baseball structure, and many people play soccer here. When it rains a lot, instead of flooding the neighborhood, the water fills the park. In this photo, the water is nearly six feet deep. It’s quite beautiful but also scary, because if it rains hard again when it’s full, our homes could flood. The park has pumps to drain it quickly to prevent that risk. Angel S. Fernandez-Bou/UCS Wildfire prevention and new technologies

Wildfire destruction prevention is another key component of Proposition 4, which includes $1.5 billion for wildfires and forest resilience. The bond plans to invest in proven scientific technologies, such as infrared cameras and drones to detect hotspots, as well as supporting forest management and cultural burning programs to reduce the fuel that feeds fires. These technologies and strategies need more funding to be implemented on a larger scale.

Heart-breaking landscape after devastating fires in Yosemite National Park, on the road between Wawona and the Yosemite Valley. Angel S. Fernandez-Bou/UCS

Although the Central Valley doesn’t directly experience wildfires, the region’s communities suffer indirectly from air pollution caused by smoke from fires elsewhere in the state. Reducing the incidence of severe wildfires would indirectly benefit people in the Central Valley by improving air quality. Additionally, Prop 4 would fund the creation of critical resilience centers in vulnerable communities where people could take refuge during extreme heat, wildfires, or severe air pollution.

The sun from my backyard in Merced in June 2024. Wildfire smoke covered the sky that otherwise didn’t have any clouds. These images are unfortunately becoming typical for Californians. Angel S. Fernandez-Bou/UCS The consequences of inaction

California’s 4th Climate Change Assessment estimates that, if no action is taken, the impacts of climate change could cost California up to $113 billion a year in the coming decades. Also, a study for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) suggests that every $1 invested in climate resilience for building saves us $6 in disaster response costs. And another study suggests that investing floodplain restoration is at least five times cheaper than the disaster relief afterward.  

Beyond economic costs, climate change also takes a heavy toll on human lives. Heatwaves, floods, and wildfires are already killing people in California, and without decisive action, these extreme events will only become more frequent and deadly.

As I write this blog, Helene has become the third deadliest Hurricane in this century in the US after Maria hit my beloved Puerto Rico in 2017 killing 3,000 people and Katrina in 2005 killed 1,200. At least 50% of Helene’s record-breaking precipitation can be attributed to human-caused climate change.

Why $10 billion, and how much will it cost?

In 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom and the Legislature approved a $54.3 billion spending package to prepare for and protect against the effects of climate change, which was later reduced to $44.6 billion due to budget cuts. This led to the cancellation of many programs that communities rely on to provide essential resilience funding.

Proposition 4 would cover the $10 billion funding gap needed to complete many of the already planned projects. The bond also has the advantage of giving greater stability to certain government programs, ensuring that funds are distributed evenly when they are most needed.

The fiscal analysis indicates that the bond will cost $400 million per year, roughly $10 per person annually. This means the interest rate is approximately 1.2% (about five times cheaper than a mortgage). However, the most important aspect is that the costs of climate disasters will not be primarily borne by the victims, but rather, everyone will invest in reducing the impacts of these disasters or preventing them from occurring altogether.

A vote for the future

Proposition 4 represents a crucial investment in California’s future. By focusing on disaster prevention and improving the resilience of the most vulnerable communities, this bond has the potential to protect both people and the environment while saving billions of dollars in future costs. The longer we wait to act, the more expensive it will be to repair the damage caused by climate change.

At a time when the effects of climate change are already being felt, Proposition 4 offers an opportunity to build a more equitable and secure future for all Californians.

That’s why it is extremely important for everyone to get informed about the facts and be protected from disinformation, so they can freely vote to decide what’s best for us all.

You can access more information about the proposition in these links:

• California voter guide (summary)
• Legislative Analyst Office (some level of detail)
• Cal Matters (some level of detail)
• Who is endorsing Prop 4 and other outreach information, including for the Central Valley

To wrap up, I want to share this photo of the Merced National Wildlife Refuge. Some programs supported by Prop 4, such as the Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program of the Department of Conservation, could help our communities, our agriculture, and our Valley to become more resilient by recovering the resilience it had two centuries ago. Like in this photo. Angel S. Fernandez-Bou/UCS

Hurricane Helene has left an 800-mile path of destruction across Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky. Right now, people are desperately waiting to hear from loved ones to confirm their safety, while others are living their worst fears as the death toll rises.

My heart is heavy. The grief of yet another climate-changed event is overwhelming. I am writing this post to share how this disaster has affected people I care about and to share resources for folks looking to support organizations on the ground helping survivors access critical food, water, and shelter (see list below).

Alongside the incredible mutual aid efforts, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must coordinate and support equitable recovery efforts, and Congress should provide robust funding for the agency to do its job to help communities get back on their feet.    

What happened

Last Thursday, Hurricane Helene rapidly intensified to a Category 4 storm before making landfall in Florida. Schools in Kentucky, where I live, and Indiana announced closures for Friday, September 27 in anticipation of the storm.  

That’s right—schools closed in Kentucky for a hurricane.  

The image (below) from the National Weather Service suggested that the storm would make a straight shot toward Kentucky as it progressed inland. I feared strong winds, spin-up tornadoes, downed trees, and power outages. I’m living in the new tornado alley, and we’ve had damaging winds and storms more often lately—so it made sense to be prepared for severe weather. 

US National Weather Service (NWS)

While my power went out for a few minutes and flickered off a few times throughout the day, it was much calmer in Louisville than I anticipated. Several counties in eastern Kentucky declared states of emergency due to wind damage, power outages, and flooding. Personally, I was relieved to finally hear from my relatives in Greenville County, South Carolina confirming they were safe. Though, my cousin and his baby had a scary close call—they were only a few feet away inside their house when a tree crashed down on their deck. 

Photo provided by the author

The aftermath of Helene is proving the worst of what we imagine in the face of climate change. I asked my colleague, Dr. Marc Alessi, an atmospheric scientist, about the hurricane. Here’s what Marc had to say: 

“Helene was an example of what hurricanes will look more like in the future. With ocean surface temperatures more than 2 degrees Celsius above normal in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, Helene was able to rapidly intensify to a Category 4 hurricane before making landfall in Florida. Helene was well forecasted by the National Hurricane Center, which accurately predicted its rapid intensification and extreme rainfall amounts in southern Appalachia.  

“Despite the warning, Helene’s torrential rain and winds brought devastation to western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, western Virginia, and eastern Kentucky. Some areas received over 2 feet of rain in a short time period, breaking rainfall records for most areas in southern Appalachia. Rivers crested above record levels set by The Great Flood of 1916, which brought similar devastation to the Asheville, NC region. According to a provisional rapid attribution study human-caused climate change may explain up to 50% of Helene’s record-breaking rainfall amounts. Needless to say, this storm is of historic proportions and will be remembered by folks in this region for decades to come.” 

Given the warming ocean surface temperatures, rapid intensification of hurricanes is happening more often. That means that, because of climate change, we need to be prepared for more destructive storms like Helene.

“It’s imperative that local, state, and federal policymakers and emergency planners help keep communities safe by prioritizing investments to get homes, businesses, and infrastructure in frontline communities climate-ready and be prepared to ensure a quick and just recovery should disaster strike. Reining in heat-trapping emissions driving the climate crisis is also essential,” Dr. Astrid Caldas, senior climate scientist for community resilience, says.

How you can help 

The road to recovery will be long, and it is important to get money to folks on the ground to assist those impacted directly. Here is a short, not exhaustive, list that some of my Southeast colleagues and I have pulled together of organizations we know, love, and trust. Please consider donating and sharing this information on social media. 

• The Southeast Climate and Energy Network: UCS is a member organization of SCEN. Donations should be tagged with “Helene.”  

• The Appalachia Funder’s Network has launched the Appalachian Helene Response Fund. Donations will be received through the Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky and channeled directly to areas of greatest need in the region. 

• Appalachian Voices: our union siblings (UCS United and Appalachian Voices Workers Union are both represented by the Progressive Workers Union), has a list of resources for ways to give, for folks seeking shelter, for finding missing loved ones, and more.  

FEMA has additional information, including how to be aware of scams during disaster response. And, if you or someone you know is experiencing distress, please reach out for help from the Disaster Distress Helpline. Call or text: 1-800-985-5990. 

Photo provided by author What’s next?

I consider myself lucky to work every day with my colleagues and folks around the country to build community resilience to climate change. At the same time, there is so much more we need to do to keep the people and places we love safe. It can be demoralizing when fossil fuel companies’ interests seem valued over human lives, and it’s infuriating when elected officials fail to do the right thing.

What is happening now, from the Gulf Coast of Florida to the mountains of Appalachia, is our reality. It is the reason we must continue to push forward, demanding a wide-scale switch to clean and renewable energy and holding fossil fuel companies accountable for the harm that burning their products is causing.  

No matter what, we must be here for each other. Let’s support those in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene now and let’s commit to advocating for communities to get the investments they need before the next storm.   

Timed to coincide with the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), last week’s Climate Week in New York City s spotlighted the urgent need for ambitious worldwide climate action. The death toll and devastation of Hurricane Helene has underscored that urgency. UNGA and the upcoming international climate negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan (known as COP29), are crucial because governments bear primary responsibility for adopting and implementing policies that will sharply reduce global warming emissions, increasing international climate finance, and defending people and policy-making processes against fossil fuel industry misconduct. Climate Week events highlighted commitments and actions needed from the financial sector and other corporations to support and spur government ambition. As usual, it was a mixed bag. While at least one event provided a platform for oil and gas industry greenwashing, others centered people directly affected by fossil fuel-driven climate change who are holding bad actors accountable.

I had the honor of moderating one of the latter events, Scientists & Activists vs. Fossil Fuel Finance. It featured a stellar panel of scientists, organizers, and frontline leaders reporting out from the Summer of Heat on Wall Street campaign and sharing their insights on why banks must stop financing fossil fuel expansion:

• Rose Z. Abramoff, PhD, Wintergreen Earth Science; Board President, Climate Emergency Fund 
• Michael Johnson, New York Communities for Change 
• Sandra Steingraber, PhD, Senior Scientist, Science and Environmental Health Network; Co-founder, Concerned Health Professionals of New York 
• Jenny Xie, Organizing Manager, Stop the Money Pipeline 

You can watch the recording of the event here.

Summer of Heat on Wall Street

According to the 2024 Banking on Climate Chaos report, Citi is the second-largest financier of fossil fuels and the largest financier of fossil fuel expansion since the Paris climate agreement, having poured $396 billion into the industry since 2016. That’s why activists with the Summer of Heat on Wall Street organized a campaign of sustained nonviolent direct action targeting Citi and other major players in the financial sector for their role in fueling the climate crisis.

In June, more than 750 scientists sent an open letter organized by UCS to Citi, calling on the bank to stop financing fossil fuel expansion, respect human rights, and redirect finance to renewable energy. Citi’s Chief Sustainability Officer, Val Smith, responded to the scientists’ letter in July, outlining the bank’s support for the transition to a low-carbon economy and sharing its 2023 Climate Report. Unfortunately, Citi’s response confirmed that the bank’s actions are not fully aligned with what science shows is necessary to limit the worst impacts of climate change and protect people, ecosystems, and economies from worsening climate disasters. 

And Citi’s response to the scientists’ letter came in the context of an escalating crackdown, as Citi and the New York Police Department attempted to suppress nonviolent protests and inhibit freedom of speech and free assembly at the bank’s headquarters.

Here are some key points emerging from last week’s event and UCS’s analysis, demonstrating why we must keep up the pressure on Citi and other Big Banks to do better when it comes to climate change and environmental justice:

Citi continues to finance more fossil fuels than low-carbon energy projects and companies

In 2021, Dr. Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, stated, “If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now—from this year.” The science is clear that a rapid and fair phaseout of fossil fuels is necessary to limit the worst climate impacts and secure a livable future. Citi’s place as the biggest financier of fossil fuel expansion is taking us in the wrong direction.

While Citi touts its $1 trillion Sustainable Finance by 2030 Goal, that figure includes the bank’s full range of environmental, social, and governance investments. A 2023 report by BloombergNEF suggests the finance industry’s ratio for low-carbon to fossil-fuel supply investment needs to be at least 4:1 by 2030 to remain aligned with scenarios under which the average global temperature rises by no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. BloombergNEF calculated Citi’s 2022 Energy Supply Banking Ratio (that is, financing for low-carbon projects and companies compared to financing for fossil fuel activities) at 0.6:1.

This year, in response to pressure from shareholders, Citi committed to regularly disclose its ratio of clean energy supply financing to fossil fuel extraction financing. These disclosures should allow shareholders and advocates to monitor the bank’s future progress on this metric.

Citi’s energy sector clients are not leading the low-carbon transition

No major oil and gas corporation has a business plan that would put it on track to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. A 2022 peer-reviewed study found that BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell continue to depend almost entirely on fossil fuels, with insignificant and opaque spending on clean energy—and that accusations of greenwashing appear well-founded. Indeed, a multiyear bicameral US congressional investigation found that the fossil fuel industry’s long-running campaign of climate deception and delay continues to this day.

Citi’s 2023 Climate Report reveals that, under Citi’s own criteria, 42% of its clients in the energy sector don’t have a substantive plan to reach net-zero, and an additional 29% don’t have a clear strategy to execute their high-level plans. Only 28% of energy clients have what Citi termed a medium-strong or strong transition plan.

Citi parrots fossil fuel industry talking points about energy needs in developing countries

The truth is low-income countries—which have done the least to cause climate change—are being hit the first and hardest by devastating climate impacts. Small Island Developing States and other Global South nations have been at the forefront of pushing for greater climate ambition and climate accountability.

The solution to meeting the world’s energy needs is not to further expand polluting, ecosystem-destroying, and climate-warming fossil fuel operations. Instead, low-income, climate-vulnerable countries urgently need and deserve rapidly scaled-up and steady funding from the wealthy nations that have caused the climate crisis, to help cut heat-trapping emissions, invest in clean energy and climate resilience, and address climate losses and damage (the negative impacts of climate change that are not being avoided or cannot be avoided through mitigation and adaptation).

Citi ignores negative health and human rights impacts on local communities from fossil fuel extraction

Fossil fuel pollution disproportionately harms BIPOC and low-income communities in the US. We urge Citi leadership to read this new report on environmental racism and health harms linked to Citi’s financing of LNG and petrochemical projects in the Gulf South, and to respond to ongoing requests from community leaders in Louisiana and Texas for a meeting to discuss these issues.

The impacts of Citi’s financing are global—Citi is also a top financier of oil and gas extraction in the Amazon. While Citi recently responded to years of pressure from Amazonian Indigenous organizations and environmental groups by saying it will no longer provide project-related financing of oil and gas expansion in the Amazon, its new policy leaves significant loopholes and fails to fully meet the demands of local Indigenous communities. While the new policy is a step forward, project-related deals are estimated to be only 18% of Citibank’s overall direct financing for Amazon oil and gas.

Citi lobbies against meaningful climate-related public policies

Citi is a member and funder of the US Chamber of Commerce, which continues to oppose climate-related legislation and regulation in its lobbying efforts. For example, the Chamber recently sued the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), aiming to stop the SEC from implementing a rule that would compel companies to disclose more details about how they manage climate-related risks. 

As noted by Alec Connon, director of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition, Citi’s CEO, Jane Fraser, is Vice Chair of the Financial Services Forum and a board member of the Bank Policy Institute, both of which receive negative rankings from LobbyMap for their lobbying on sustainable finance policy, including corporate climate disclosure and climate-related risk management.

Science—and scientists—call on Citi to stop fueling the climate crisis

As part of the Summer of Heat on Wall Street campaign, scientists have engaged in civil disobedience and been arrested outside of Citi’s doors on multiple occasions, alongside elders, youth, frontline leaders, and other activists. It was a “summer of heat” in multiple senses, with an unprecedented number of heat records being broken across the globe and dangerous extreme weather causing economic damage and death.

Scientists are joining this powerful and growing movement to hold Big Banks accountable on climate because we know that the science is clear. The world will face increasingly catastrophic climate impacts if we do not swiftly phase out fossil fuels, cut heat-trapping emissions, and make a just transition to a clean energy economy, and every sector must play its part.

That’s why Citi and other major financial institutions must stop prolonging the fossil fuel era—and the fossil fuel industry’s exorbitant profits—at the expense of people and ecosystems around the world. You can help increase the pressure on Citi by sharing the event recording and the new report Citi: Funding Fossil-Fueled Environmental Racism in the Gulf South on social media. To stay tuned with what’s coming next for the Summer of Heat campaign, sign up for updates here.

Thanks to Campaign Organizer Hannah Poor for her assistance with this blogpost and for her leadership in organizing UCS’s Climate Week events.

This week, New York City is hosting the UN General Assembly meetings and the annual Climate Week events. With the continued trend of extreme climate-fueled disasters around the world—including deadly and damaging heatwaves, floods, fires, and storms—the urgency of solutions for the climate crisis couldn’t be clearer.

What we hear from world leaders this week will give us an indication of their seriousness in helping to secure an ambitious outcome at the annual UN climate talks, COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan in November. Civil society groups will also be at climate week to demand action and remind world leaders of their responsibilities. And business leaders will have the opportunity to show whether they truly want to be part of the solution—or are just engaged in greenwashing while seeking short-term profits from carbon-intensive activities.

Here are three key international climate priorities that I will be paying close attention to this year.

1: Raising the ambition of national emissions reduction commitments, aka nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

The latest data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the EU’s Copernicus climate service show that the 2024 January-August period is the hottest ever by far, putting this year well on track to be the warmest ever on record. Meanwhile, the global emissions trajectory is dangerously off track from where it needs to be to meet global climate goals, with heat-trapping emissions continuing to rise.

When countries signed on to the 2015 Paris Agreement, they made initial voluntary commitments (the so-called Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs) to reduce their heat-trapping emissions, and agreed to revisit them every five years to reflect the “highest possible ambition.” (see Articles 4.2 and 4.3 of the Paris Agreement). By February 2025, the next round of NDCs is due and it’s clear that all countries—especially richer nations like the United States—will need to step up significantly if we are to have any chance of meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement.

In its last NDC, back in 2021, the U.S. committed to cutting its emissions 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030. A range of state and federal policies—including the Inflation Reduction Act—currently puts it on track to cut emissions about 32-43% below 2005 levels by 2030. That means we’ll need to quickly add additional clean energy policies and policies to phase out fossil fuels just to meet our 2030 goals.

For the next round of NDCs, the U.S. should commit to cutting its heat-trapping emissions at least 70% below 2005 levels by 2035, a level that UCS modeling shows is possible, but that will require political will and significant new policies to achieve. In this context, the potential increase in energy demand to meet the emerging needs of AI data centers is worrisome and threatens to erode progress unless proactive measures are taken to manage possible impacts on the energy system in line with the pace of the clean energy transition. The next US NDC should also be explicit about commitments to phase out fossil fuels in a fast and fair way and set ambitious sectoral targets for a clean energy transition, while addressing the need to invest in climate resilience as well.

A comprehensive suite of policies is needed to deliver on our NDC goals. For the decade ahead and beyond, we’ve got to think boldly and deploy policies and investments that help cut overall energy demand and enable a thriving lower-carbon economy and healthier lifestyles—including through better land use planning and development; more public transit; and more livable, walkable neighborhoods.

To meet global climate goals, all nations must increase their emissions reduction commitments and enact the enabling policies to meet them—especially richer nations and major emitting countries. In addition to the U.S., that includes the EU countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, Russia, China and India. But we’re not going to get anywhere if each nation tries to dodge its responsibilities and points at the inaction of others. Rather, fostering cooperation and a shared commitment to increased ambition are the needs of the hour as we confront this collective action problem.  

2: Increasing international climate finance

This year, at COP29, nations will also have to agree on the quantum of international climate finance that richer nations will provide post-2025 to help lower-income nations cut their heat-trapping emissions and adapt to climate change. These outcomes are being determined through multi-year negotiations on the ‘New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on Climate Finance’ leading up to COP29, which is being billed as the climate finance COP.

Climate action will require considerable resources that low-income nations are unlikely to be able to marshal on their own. Furthermore, countries that have contributed the least to climate-warming emissions are now facing a disproportionate brunt of climate impacts stemming from the failure of richer nations to cut their outsize emissions. Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement calls for “Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.” The latest IPCC report also underscores how crucial this finance is to meet climate goals.

Back in 2009, richer nations committed to a goal of providing $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020, a goal that was reaffirmed in Paris in 2015. That goal was finally met in 2022, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The NCQG negotiations are aimed at delivering the next tranche of finance commitments. This time around, it’s clear that much more finance is necessary to meet the moment: funding to dramatically accelerate the clean energy transition and fossil fuel phaseout in lower-income nations, funding to help them adapt to the relentless impacts of climate change, and funding to help address extreme climate loss and damage. Failing to provide this finance not only risks the world’s ability to cut emissions sharply and quickly, it is also imposing an increasingly unjust toll on the least developed nations. A recent report from the World Meteorological Organization shows that, “On average, African countries are losing 2–5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and many are diverting up to 9 percent of their budgets responding to climate extremes.”

The U.S. and other richer nations should agree to collectively marshaling climate finance on the order of one trillion per year, starting in 2025. And additional countries in a position to do so should also step up to contribute funding on a voluntary basis. Most of this funding should be grant-based or grant-equivalent to avoid trapping low-income nations in a worsening spiral of indebtedness as is the case currently. Innovative sources of funding—such as pollution taxes and wealth taxes—should be part of the discussion. Reforming international multilateral lending architecture to be fairer and more aligned with climate and sustainable development objectives is also critical.

U.S. contributions to international climate finance have repeatedly fallen short of what’s necessary. Congress, too, must step up since it holds the power of the purse. The United States must also help lead the ongoing negotiations at the OECD to restrict export credit support for all unabated fossil fuel projects, as it committed to do at COP26 in Glasgow, and as we have called for in a recent joint letter to US Treasury Secretary Yellen and US Export-Import Bank Chair Lewis.  

3: Defending against bad-faith actions from fossil fuel interests

Fossil fuel interests are a perennial threat to climate progress, at home and abroad. Their presence at the annual climate talks has been increasing alarmingly. Unfortunately, at COP29 in Baku we are likely to see them out in full force again, trying to undermine and dilute global climate agreements. The crucial question is: will policymakers stand up to that pressure from polluters and deliver what people need?

Last year at COP28, nations were finally able reach an agreement calling for a phase down of fossil fuels—the first time the root cause of climate change was addressed in a global climate agreement. The follow-through has been pretty mixed globally thus far. The US, for example, is still enabling surging levels of production of oil and gas. We need domestic policies that explicitly ensure that fossil fuels are being phased down, alongside ramping up renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Litigation efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for damage caused by their products and for deceiving consumers and investors are gaining ground in domestic and international courts. These additional avenues to secure climate progress are likely to increase in importance, especially if policymakers’ efforts to curtail heat-trapping emissions and stand up to the fossil fuel lobby continue to fall short.

What does climate ambition mean in 2024?

Around the world, wars and extreme disasters are exacting a punishing toll on people and require urgent action from political leaders to seek solutions that bring peace and safety. The climate crisis, too, requires urgent attention. These intersecting crises must be dealt with at the same time and should not be cynically traded off against each other in competing for political attention or funding.

This year has been extraordinarily volatile politically, with “change” elections around the world inserting uncertainty in the future direction of climate policy. One thing we cannot lose sight of is that the measure of climate ambition is not set by politics but by what science shows is necessary to help limit the worst impacts of climate change. Ambition should also encompass justice, to help ensure that the climate outcomes we strive to secure meet the needs of those with the fewest resources on the frontlines of a crisis that is not of their making. Equally, the necessary phaseout of fossil fuels must be accompanied by just transition policies and investments for affected communities.

Here in the United States, regardless of the forthcoming election outcomes, we know the climate crisis is set to worsen and that without robust action, people and our economy will suffer as a result. That’s why we must push for policy solutions that increase the pace and magnitude of cuts in U.S. heat-trapping emissions; ramp up investments in climate resilience; and significantly increase our commitments toward international climate finance.

This will likely be the hottest year to date, and maybe one of the coolest in the years to come. Will politicians seize this narrowing window of opportunity to do what is both daunting and necessary for safeguarding the future of people around the world especially our children? Right now, the signs are not encouraging. We must demand much more of our leaders.

Last week, we received our voter information guides in the mailbox. Before I had a chance to even take a look, I found my fifth-grader reading through the guide with a checklist. Looking over her shoulder, I saw her list of the proposition numbers – most with question marks next to them – but one with a big, bold check mark: Proposition 4.

Even though I hadn’t said a word, she gets it. In her short life, she has been through three wildfire evacuations, she has been told not to drink the toxic drinking water in our friend’s neighborhood in Merced County, and she has been kept inside for days and weeks on end due to dangerous, orange, smoky skies. I don’t have to explain why investing in climate resilience is about the best financial decision California could make right now for her future. The kids get it.

But don’t just take it from them, take it from the esteemed climate scientists who I work with at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who have been analyzing how climate change is impacting the Golden State in a myriad of ways:

• From more dangerous and destructive wildfires: The Fossil Fuels Behind Forest Fires
  
• To melting summers and prolonged extreme heat: Too Hot to Work: Assessing the Threats Climate Change Poses to Outdoor Workers
  
• To more intense droughts and floods, drying up crops and contaminating drinking water: Troubled Waters: Preparing for Climate Threats to California’s Water System
  
• To higher seas, threatening communities and critical infrastructure: Looming Deadlines for Coastal Resilience: Rising Seas, Disruptive Tides, and Risks to Coastal Infrastructure
  

I probably don’t need to tell you any of this, because you are living it. We know the facts: recent wildfires have burned millions of acres of forest and cost taxpayers billions of dollars; more than a million Californians don’t have access to clean drinking water; and our state’s precious farmland and wildlife are at risk from the impacts of a changing climate.

Proposition 4 invests in a more resilient future by providing much needed funding to address these threats, particularly in the most vulnerable and low-income communities where the needs are greatest. It will invest almost $4 billion in safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resilience, $1.5 billion in wildfire and forest resilience, $1.2 billion in sea level rise and coastal resilience, and about a half billion in extreme heat mitigation. As a water scientist, it’s particularly important to me that the bond prioritizes storing water underground, refilling our depleted groundwater aquifers. Groundwater storage, unlike surface water storage (or dams) will continue to work even as it gets hotter and drier.

Some people say it’s too expensive and we should have made these investments earlier. (Ironically, these are many of the same people who also argued that climate change wasn’t “real” just a few short years ago.) In fact, there couldn’t be a better time to borrow money as interest rates have plummeted over the last few months to the lowest point in many years. At the same time, the costs of inaction are rising. Fire suppression costs, alone, more than doubled from below a half billion in 2020 to over $1.2 billion in 2022.

Climate change is here and it’s costly. Wildfire risks are already driving up insurance and utility bills. Proposition 4 marks an historic shift from simply throwing money at disaster response to proactive investing in disaster prevention, saving billions of dollars in future costs from devastating fires, water shortages, and other climate hazards. The only question is whether we do the right thing now or let the problem get bigger and more expensive for our kids to deal with later.

The science and the kids are clear: Proposition 4 is the right thing to do—we should listen.

Science communication is strengthened when we use creative approaches. Art is such a powerful tool for this, especially when communicating to kids.

Last year, I met Dave Schneider, a climate scientist who studies ice sheets and climate systems, work very similar to my own. He recently published a children’s book titled Goodnight Fossil Fuels! that’s specifically about climate change and fossil fuel accountability. The book was co-written and illustrated by environmental educator and artist Kira Davis. It stars a penguin who teams up with scientists to help solve the problem of how fossil fuels are harming the climate system and features colorful watercolor artwork.

I interviewed Dave and Kira about their book and the importance of collaborations between scientists and artists to advance science communication.

Dr. Shaina Sadai: Dave, your bio describes you as “a climate scientist, writer and outdoor explorer” with an inner compass that pointed you to writing children’s books. Can you elaborate on that inner compass, and what motivated you to write this book in particular?

Dr. Dave Schneider: There were three things that intersected for me. The first is that a few years ago I was shopping for holiday gifts for my nephews, and I came across a children’s book section in a toy store. I checked out the science books, and there were some interesting titles but literally nothing about climate change. I mean, you would think that if children’s climate books exist, you would find them in Boulder, Colorado, the city with the most climate scientists per capita in the world. I found a few titles, but they were all about as engaging as a textbook. There was nothing that’d grab a kid’s attention like a Dr. Seuss book, and certainly nothing that conveyed that climate change is a serious threat to our kids’ futures. So, I began to think about creating a book of my own. Reading books with my nephews was a way that I connected with them when they were little. I needed this book for bedtime stories, for opening the conversation about climate change and what I study.

Second, I knew that I would feel guilty if I went through my career and life, knowing that I knew a lot about this problem, but did not communicate it well, did not speak up about it. I felt that I needed to do something a little more visible than what I had done so far.

Third, I am not intrinsically motivated by physics, computer programming, or math. I have a creative side that was not being exercised in my day job. Writing a book was my chance to do something on the side that was creative and fun.

Shaina: The dedication at the start of the book says, “may it help you to envision and build a brighter future without fossil fuels.” Could you talk about how you envision and build a world without fossil fuels in your life and work?

Dave: “Brighter” is the key word there. We need to make everyone aware of the fact that phasing out fossil fuels will be win-win for all but a tiny number of billionaires. The most talked-about steps are on the energy side, where we must build out renewables and electrify everything. It’s also changing how we design our cities, buildings, and transportation systems, and how we grow our food. There are roles for everyone in this transition, whether you are an oil field worker, farmer, or investment banker. It’s an inclusive future with abundant clean energy, healthy soils, clean air and good food. It’s hard to describe, but I’ll know it when I see it. We have no choice but to strive for it.

A collage of images from Goodnight Fossil Fuels! (credit: Shaina Sadai/UCS)

Shaina: Kira, your bio notes your connections to animals, and your dedication at the start is to “the creatures of the Anthropocene, in memory of the Creatures of the Carboniferous.” Your dedication also states, “I wish for this book to heighten awareness and caring towards all living beings sharing this Earth together.” This really resonated with me, especially as someone who has worked on multispecies climate justice. Could you elaborate on your thoughts about our biodiverse world in the Anthropocene?

Kira Davis: We are changing the atmosphere, and the planet is warming to an extent that desertification and warmer temperatures are causing migrations, extinctions, land loss as water levels rise. But even without climate change, the ripping up of the land to mine resources is immense. The transformation of forest and other land into agriculture (and so much to grow animal feed!) is disastrous. The pollution of heavy metals into the water and all kinds of sickening chemicals into the air leaves so many with respiratory diseases. The biodiversity of our planet as we know it is plummeting. So many birds, insects, and plants, are going extinct. But it doesn’t have to be this way. And climate change has become one of the largest factors—if not the largest —that leads to exponentially quickening collapse.

Shaina: Without giving away too much plot, there are times in the book when animals and humans work together. How do you think about interspecies relationships and their role in confronting climate change?

Kira: We are all inter-related. There is no escaping that. Shifting toward plant-based diets would have a huge impact. Cycling and walking and taking the bus when one doesn’t ‘need’ to drive can be a very impactful habit to nurture. I have a list of eco-challenges that people have pledged to do for a habit-forming month. All of these are ways to shift our roles away from fear or autopilot and toward stewardship.

Shaina: What role can collaborations between artists and scientists play in addressing climate change?

Dave: One of the biggest barriers to climate action is communication. Art is one of humanity’s most effective methods of communicating. Climate scientists are often blamed for being poor communicators, which we often are, but that critique is missing the point that we have very little support for communicating. We’re up against the richest industry in the history of the world, which has unlimited resources for marketing, lobbying, and public relations. Collaborations between independent artists and scientists are essential for constructing positive narratives about climate action that are consistent with the science. This book is just one little thing that will work for a niche audience. But there are so many other audiences to reach; I hope more scientists and artists will collaborate and find creative, effective ways to communicate.

Kira: Creating illustrations for environmental education is fun, meaningful, and exciting. I love thinking about how to illustrate an idea and molding it to my audience—in this case, kids!

Over the last three months, which have been declared the world’s hottest summer on record, outdoor workers across the US have endured dangerously hot conditions on the job. They’ve cut grass in 112°F heat in California’s Coachella Valley, handled baggage on the hot tarmac of airports across the country, harvested fruit, delivered packages, and performed countless other functions that go largely unnoticed by our society.

Unlike past Danger Seasons, however, this one included glimmer of hope: After decades of stalling, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has published a proposed federal heat-protection standard that would require employers to protect their workers from extreme heat (haga clic aquí para leer en español). And truthfully? The proposed standard isn’t perfect, but it’s damn solid. The public comment period on the proposed standard runs through December 30th.

Here’s what we at UCS see as critical for making the final version as strong as possible—and how you, too, can weigh in.

Wait, we still don’t have a federal standard protecting workers from heat?

First off, a quick recap of the current situation.

Across the US, there are only five states that have some level of workplace heat protections on the books. California and Oregon’s standards cover both indoor and outdoor workers; Washington’s standards cover only outdoor workers; Colorado’s protect only agricultural workers; and Minnesota’s cover only indoor workers. Maryland is close to finalizing a standard and would be the first East Coast state to do so.

At the local level, a few localities—including Phoenix, Tucson, and Pima County, Arizona—have passed ordinances protecting city or county workers. But other localities, such as Austin, TX, and Miami-Dade County, FL—have been barred by their state governments from enacting local protections.

What that means is that in most of the country, even in the hottest places, workers are at the mercy of their employers when it comes to working in extreme heat.

But help is on the way: a federal heat-protection standard is now in sight. It’s critical that the next steps in the rulemaking process are as expeditious as possible and we get a strong final rule soon.

OSHA has issued a proposed heat-protection standard

In the fall of 2021, OSHA announced it was initiating the rulemaking process to create a workplace heat-protection standard. After obtaining thousands of comments through two rounds of public comment and getting recommendations from a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, on August 30th, OSHA formally issued a proposed heat-protection rule—officially called “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings.” The proposal is now open for public comment through December 30, 2024.

For more background on the rulemaking process, click here.

The good stuff in this proposed rule includes:

• The core health-protective measures workers need when it’s hot: water, shade, and rest;
• Provisions that require rest breaks to be paid—a real win that will ensure workers don’t have to choose between their health and their livelihoods. UCS research shows that outdoor workers could collectively be losing billions of dollars in earnings due to worsening extreme heat by midcentury if provisions like this are not in place;
• The inclusion of an initial heat trigger at 80°F, above which certain protective measures go into place, and a high heat trigger at 90°F, when those measures get ramped up;
• Requirements that managers involve non-managerial employees in identifying hot spots in workplaces and in developing plans to monitor employees when it’s hot.

OSHA has also provided extensive, science-based background materials supporting the proposed rule.

But there are also some weak points that can be improved with pressure through public comments. For example:

• Exempting employers with fewer than 10 employees from putting heat injury and illness protection plans in writing. There are different means of assessing how many employers and employees this would exempt, but it’s safe to say it’s a lot. Pew research shows that half of small businesses in the US have fewer than five employees, for example. And the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council has used Census data to estimate that nearly 80% of employer firms have fewer than ten employees.
• Weak and limited recordkeeping requirements. Under the proposed rule, employers would not be required to keep records of heat illnesses and injuries experienced in their workplaces or how those cases were resolved. Employers would only be required to keep six months’ worth of records of workplace temperatures.
• A fixed length for rest breaks—a minimum of 15 minutes every two hours—rather than progressively longer breaks as the temperature rises, as was suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in their 2016 recommendations.  
• Shorter-than-needed acclimatization periods. The proposed rule requires employers to implement a gradual period of acclimatization for new workers that is, at a minimum, four days long. Science suggests this is much too short. OSHA’s own data has shown that most workplace heat-related fatalities occur during the first week on the job. And the CDC notes that acclimatization can take longer than one week. That said, a longer acclimatization period means less time hourly workers are working, so this may be a tough sell.

A lesson from California and Oregon: A heat protection standard alone isn’t enough to protect workers

If the proposed federal standard went into place as-is, it would be a huge step forward in the fight for worker safety in the face of a warming climate. But evidence from states that have had standards in place for years suggests that such rules, on their own, aren’t enough.

In California, there’s evidence that rates of heat-related injuries in the workplace have declined—but not to zero—since the state’s heat-protection standards went into effect in 2006. But over the last several years, there’s been a drop in workplace inspections and enforcement of that law. And without inspections and enforcement, it’s all too easy for employers to fly under the radar.

Recognizing that climate change threatens to increase instances of heat-related injury, illness, and death, California lawmakers passed a bill, SB1299, that is now waiting for Governor Newsom to sign that would create a revolving workers’ compensation fund to compensate workers who incurred medical costs resulting from workplace heat exposure (or, grimly, their families who are owed death benefits).

At the same time, workers in California are organizing and fighting for additional protections, including earning hazard pay for working through extreme heat and smoke; being paid for full workdays even if heat or smoke cause employers to send workers home early; and, just generally, earning higher wages.

Similarly, in Oregon, despite statewide heat-protection standards, workers are still having to choose between health and paycheck because they don’t want to lose income and they fear employer retaliation if they take time off. For the last several years, a stopgap program in the state has compensated farmworkers who lost wages due to heat or smoke. But the fund is no longer accepting new applications and, earlier this year, the state legislature decided not to approve additional funding.

The Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury and Fatality Prevention Act is an important complement to the OSHA standard. Among other provisions, this bill underscores OSHA’s responsibility and authority to develop and enforce worker heat-health protections and puts a timeline in place for finalization of a rule. Click here to tell your members of Congress to support and pass this important bill.

Tell OSHA to act quickly to enact a strong heat standard

If you’ve never submitted a public comment to a federal agency before, there’s no better time than the present!

OSHA is accepting comments on its proposed heat-protection standard through December 30, 2024, and you, too, can weigh in. Click here and fill out the form to contribute your perspective. To do so you could draw the strengths and weaknesses I list above if you’d like. You could also draw from fellow advocate Juanita Constible’s excellent blog post about the proposed rule. Or you could read the proposed rule itself and decide how you’d like respond.

Whatever route you choose, please consider submitting a comment. The health and wellbeing of the roughly 30 million outdoor workers in the U.S. depends on this standard being as strong as possible, and it’s up to all of us to ensure it lives up to its potential.

Throughout his two terms, Governor Gavin Newsom has driven California to the top of the world in clean transportation policies that will improve air quality and fight the climate crisis. Under Newsom, California passed policies to get the state to 100% zero emission vehicle (ZEV) sales, transition large truck fleets from dirty diesel to zero emissions, and fund billions of dollars in incentives and infrastructure for clean transportation.  

But California can’t take the foot off the gas (or uh, accelerator) now and neither can Newsom. As these policies change our transportation future, new hurdles arise, and we need new solutions to address them. 

EVs are abundant in much of the state, but polluting, old vehicles remain in lower-income neighborhoods. They demand electricity to charge while climate-fueled disasters are jeopardizing energy reliability. And there is a snowball of retired EV batteries on the horizon without a responsible party in charge of recycling them. 

Luckily, these new challenges have proven solutions and – look at that! – they were approved by the legislature and are now sitting on Newsom’s desk, awaiting his signature to become law.  

Focus clean vehicle incentives on replacing the oldest, most polluting cars

UCS sponsored AB 2401 by Assemblymember Ting, which would expand the state’s Clean Cars 4 All program to help low-income and high-mileage drivers replace their older, polluting gas cars with EVs. This common-sense, data-backed bill received ZERO “no” votes from any lawmaker and is awaiting a green light from the state’s top executive.  

The bill responds to research conducted by UCS and The Greenlining Institute showing that while pre-2004 vehicles account for fewer than 20% of the cars on California’s roads, they emit nearly 75% of the smog-forming nitrogen oxides emissions. These dirty vehicles are overrepresented in low-income neighborhoods and disproportionately impact the health of these already overburdened communities.  

Adding insult to injury, the state has had several difficult budget cycles in recent years and is bracing for more. This has meant decreasing or cutting funding for clean vehicle incentive dollars that would normally help replace these old vehicles with cleaner alternatives.  

AB 2401 would help California’s limited incentives go further and focus them on the communities that need them the most.  

Use batteries for more than just driving

What if EVs weren’t just a clean transportation solution, but a clean energy solution too? UCS sponsored SB 59 – authored by Senator Skinner – to explicitly give the state the authority to require that all EVs are “bidirectional”, meaning they would have the ability to power homes, appliances, or even the grid with the power stored in their batteries.  

As California rightly electrifies its homes, buildings and vehicles, the state must produce more electricity to meet this new demand. And as demand is increasing, climate-fueled extreme heat and wildfires are straining grid reliability.  

By signing SB 59, Newsom could turn the clean transportation future he was instrumental in building into a clean energy reliability asset. That certainly sounds a lot better than turning to a bunch of new diesel generators for backup power, doesn’t it? 

Recover minerals from old batteries  

UCS has provided a science-based explanation on how EV batteries can and should be recycled, which underpins SB 615 by Senator Allen. This bill would ensure that all EV batteries are reused, repurposed or recycled by: 

1. explicitly making automakers responsible for their products at the end of the products’ lives,
     
2. requiring robust reporting and tracking of EV batteries, and  
   
3. setting up a process to ensure batteries are being sent to cleaner, more efficient recyclers.  

Between now and 2030, battery retirements will increase rapidly and if we do not have a strong policy in place – such as SB 615 – we could end up with batteries in landfills or being abandoned all together.   

By signing SB 615, Newsom can plan ahead for the safe recycling of EV batteries so critical minerals can be recovered and reused, reducing the amount of mining necessary for fully electrifying our cars and trucks over the coming years 

So, Mr. Governor, would you like to borrow a pen? 

It’s been a great year for California policy: we are providing sensible, science-backed solutions to move us from a dirty, extractive economy to a clean, sustainable one. All that needs to happen now is for Newsom to continue his climate leadership.  

It’s hard to keep up with the latest stories on extreme heat.  2023 was the world’s hottest year—a record that is likely to be broken by 2024. And just last month, NASA recorded the hottest day on record ever on July 22, the latest in a 13-month stretch of consecutive record-setting weather. These events are part of an upward march in extreme heat in the US that has turned summer into a veritable danger season. And what gets lost as we confront these record-breaking conditions is the reality that heat—like many other effects of climate change—has a disproportionate impact on older adults. But the good news is that when we center our heat response and broader climate resilience efforts in reducing the impacts to older adults, we also create safer communities for all.

Unique risks

The toll that climate change is taking on older adults is evident in the fatality rates recorded from an array of climate-fueled disasters:

• In July 2024, older adults accounted for 75% of the fatalities resulting from power outages following Hurricane Beryl in Texas. The deaths occurred in the days and sometimes weeks after the storm during which people were unable to cool their homes and power in-home medical equipment.
• In December 2023, atmospheric rivers hovered over Ventura County, California, flooding nearly 500 homes largely occupied by low-income households, undocumented people, and older adults. The relatively small size of the event failed to trigger traditional FEMA disaster relief, and many older residents lack the savings to rebuild or the willingness to take on a loan that may result in the loss of their largest remaining asset.
• A year ago, older adults represented 73% of the fatalities in the Lahain’a wildfires, in large part because they live with mobility challenges because of advanced age or disability, or the economic vulnerability that comes with living on a fixed income with little or no retirement savings.

Heat may be the topic that captures our attention this summer—and deservedly so.  For older adults, hotter weather poses unique risks because older bodies are less able to regulate heat. They may also have pre-existing health conditions or take medications that make them more vulnerable to rising temperatures.  That helps to explain why 80% of the 12,000 heat-related deaths each year in the US are among people over 60.

Higher costs

But a hotter planet threatens older adults in other ways, too.  More hot days also mean greater demand for cooling, which in turn leads to higher utility bills that people of limited incomes can rarely afford. Already, low-income people pay 8% of their income on utilities—2.5 times more than the national average. For the 15% of older adults who live near or below the poverty line, this remains an untenable expense.

More extreme weather also means more frequent and deadly hurricanes, and increased flooding— and therefore higher insurance premiums as the insurance market adjusts to our new climate realities. Together, the rising cost of utilities, insurance, and rent or mortgage means that older adults are more housing cost-burdened than ever before. Today, more than half of all older renters pay more than one-third of their income on housing, as do more than one-quarter of older homeowners.

The effects of climate change on older adults are rarely made a centerpiece of climate resilience planning—despite the fact that people over 65 years of age are the fastest-growing demographic in the US. By 2030, older adults will outnumber children for the first time ever, a demographic shift that Newsweek described as a “population time bomb,” and one that will coincide with the growing risks of climate change.

Few communities consider the needs of older adults when planning for climate disasters if they plan for these disasters at all. While some communities and states have committed to becoming more “age-friendly” in an effort to create places where people of all ages can thrive, not nearly enough consider the climate-related impacts on housing, transportation, and connectedness that will shape how or if older adults can safely age in place.

Plan for an aging US

It’s not too late to get ahead of this challenge.  Communities must learn from our recent experience of how climate change differently impacts older adults, and commit to climate resilience planning that centers their needs.  When local and state leaders embrace solutions that work for older adults—like incentives to make homes more energy-efficient to reduce utility costs, and public transit systems that work better for non-drivers in times of emergency—benefits accrue to all.

It all begins by getting to know who the older adults are in your community and what they need.  That means looking well beyond the two percent of older adults who live in nursing homes and assisted living, and identifying the housing, transportation, communication, and service needs of the 98% who live in the community, often alone.  Invite older adults—and those who represent them, like Area Agencies on Aging—to be a part of climate resilience planning. Leverage resources such as those offered by AARP and FEMA on the topic of disaster resilience for older adults  to start a broader conversation on climate risks to older adults, and how those risks can be mitigated—before, during, and after disasters. There are two things that we can be sure of:  our hottest days are yet to come, and we (as individuals and as a nation) will continue to age.  Let’s take action now to address the ways in which those two trends intersect.

Rising temperatures = rising costs

The heat is on: it’s burning down forests and towns, it’s melting down grids, and it’s making hard jobs even harder. Beyond the staggering human and environmental toll of danger season’s extreme weather, there are rising costs associated with climate damages. And those costs are not being borne equitably. California has taken important steps to address some of these equity concerns—and now has another big opportunity to pass the water and wildfire bond, which will be on the ballot this November as
Proposition 4.

As one example of these rising costs, Californians’ electricity bills have been skyrocketing over the past few years. This is concerning not only because people are struggling to pay their utility bills, but also because increasing rates are starting to become a barrier to transitioning to electric vehicles for some families and individuals.

There are multiple reasons why bills are increasing, but the main driver is costs related to reducing wildfire risks, according to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Climate-caused hotter, drier conditions are leading to longer, more intense wildfire seasons in many parts of California . Worryingly, the Commission notes that only a few wildfire-related expenses have made it onto customer bills, namely increased costs for vegetation management and wildfire insurance. There are many more capital costs likely coming. And we know that as our climate warms further—driven by burning fossil fuels—the risk of large wildfires will only grow.

To-date, the public narrative has largely focused on the narrow issue of rates, or how costs are distributed among different customers. Equitable rate structures are important to ensure affordability. Yet, danger season means costs are rising overall and will continue to drive up the revenue requirement, or the total amount of money that utilities are allowed to collect across all their customers.

Right now, increased costs associated with larger and more intense wildfires are mostly borne individually or by the most impacted regions. It’s a starkly regressive way to pick up the tab. That’s why California is taking, or should take, these steps:

Sue the fossil fuel industry for damages

Extensive scientific research has shown how fossil fuel companies have contributed to worsening climate change impacts. A UCS report, The Fossil Fuels behind Forest Fires, calculates that about half of the rise in fire-danger conditions in western North America since 1901 can be traced to carbon pollution from 88 fossil fuel companies and cement manufacturers. This alarming finding clarifies the significant role and responsibility of fossil fuel companies to not only stop their harm moving forward, but also to address damage they have already done. This science has been incorporated into dozens of lawsuits filed by cities, counties, and states to collect damages from fossil fuel companies. Last year, California filed the most significant lawsuit addressing climate deception and damages. But the wheels of justice can turn slowly, and in the meantime, costs are racking up.

Ensure affordability in rate structures

Earlier this year, the California Public Utility Commission passed new requirements to ensure electricity rate structures address growing affordability concerns by incorporating an income-based monthly charge that more equitably shares the costs for electricity infrastructure while also supporting the transition from fossil fuels to clean electricity. The new rate structure guidance lowers electricity bills on average for lower-income households and those living in regions most impacted by extreme weather events.

Develop more equitable ways to share rising costs

Now more than ever, wildfires are affecting all of us whether they are burning through our neighborhoods, shutting down our power supplies, keeping us indoors for days, or sending people to the hospital with asthma attacks. One way California has financed shared resource management challenges is through general obligation bonds. General obligation bonds allow us to spread out costs across all taxpayers and incorporate affordability by applying taxable income tiers in repayment. This is why UCS supports California’s water and wildfire bond, which will be on the ballot this November as
Proposition 4.

Reduce the rate of return to investors to limit rising costs

Beyond finding more equitable financing methods, the state should also consider limiting how much money utility investors or shareholders receive, known as the rate of return, included in the revenue requirement. Recent analysis from the Haas School of Business finds “that over recent years, utilities have earned sizeable regulated rates of return on their capital assets, particularly when set against the unprecedented low interest rate environment from 2008–2022. When the economy-wide cost of capital fell, utilities’ regulated rates of return did not fall nearly as much. This gap raises the prospect that at least some of the growth in capital spending could be driven by utilities earning excess regulated returns.” They conclude that excess rates of return have important implications beyond just the additional cost they place on consumers. From a distributional standpoint, higher rates create a transfer of wealth from ratepayers to shareholders. From a societal standpoint, expensive energy can discourage electrification, which is a key component of our efforts to tackle climate change.

Achieve our clean energy goals to limit rising costs

Over the long-term, the only way to significantly reduce the costs associated with worsening wildfires is to limit climate change impacts. California has passed the nation’s most ambitious climate change emission reduction goals. And, while we have made important progress, to achieve our goals we need to roughly double the amount of clean energy coming online. We have previously blogged about solutions to overcome the top three clean energy barriers: the need for more transmission capacity; delays in the interconnection process; and permitting difficulties.

What you can do: Vote yes on Proposition 4 this November

California has already done a lot to get us on the right path by filing lawsuits against big oil companies to recoup damages and by reforming electricity rate structures to ensure affordability. Right now, we now need to focus on passing Proposition 4 this November. Moving forward, lawmakers should consider limiting the rate of return that is authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission and addressing barriers to clean energy. We cannot afford to be distracted by temporary fixes that will raid our state’s preeminent climate mitigation and adaptation programs. California has always led the way by investing in the future rather than stealing from the past—this time should be no different.

On August 13, Tropical Storm Ernesto rapidly intensified just before hitting Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The intensification and trajectory merited a hurricane warning for the Virgin Islands as well as the island municipalities of Vieques and Culebra. Despite not making landfall in either archipelago, Ernesto brought with it winds of up to 50 miles per hour (80.5 kilometers per hour) and up to 10 inches (25.5 cm) of rain to Puerto Rico. The next day, Wednesday, August 14, Puerto Rico woke up with 728,000 clients (almost half) without electricity, thousands without drinking water (because many communities rely on electricity to pump water), and flood warnings throughout the island. 

Fortunately, no deaths were reported due to the passage of the storm. But the fragile state of Puerto Rico’s energy infrastructure is not lost on anyone. Seven years after hurricane María devastated Puerto Rico and resulted in the largest power blackout in U.S. history (80% of power was knocked out and some residents didn’t get power back for a year), once again the island’s residents have been forced to experience a crippling power outage affecting at least half the population. Our population is forced to throw away perishable foods, cannot use dialysis machines for patients at home, and cannot cool their homes from the dangerous heat after the storm.  

Private electricity companies operate with zero accountability for non-compliance with minimum performance conditions 

LUMA, the private consortium in charge of electricity distribution, is not capable of reliably maintaining vital electric service on the island. The most recent proof of this prior to tropical storm Ernesto occurred in June of this year, when more than 340,000 subscribers were left without electricity in the midst of a terrible heat wave. This prompted the energy regulatory body, the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau (NEPR), to demand explanations from LUMA for the 19% increase in power outages between 2023 and 2024.

And why so many outages? Laughably, LUMA says it took on the task of removing overgrown vegetation, since this is “the main cause of service interruptions in Puerto Rico,” a misleading statement according to the Center for Investigative Journalism (CPI). According to LUMA, if the foliage is not to blame, then the fauna is: mice, iguanas, cats, and monkeys are all suspected of causing the blackouts on the island. Everything except its own incompetence and negligence.  

It is infuriating that seven years after Hurricane María, after the $750 million cushion that taxpayers in Puerto Rico were forced to contribute so that LUMA could enter the market, after firing the experienced line workers and dismissing their union contracts, after at least seven increases in the electricity rates (after LUMA promised that there would be no such increases), Puerto Rico does not have reliable electricity at prices that the majority of our people can afford. 

One reason is that LUMA is allowed to operate in the most outrageous way possible, starting with all the irregularities mentioned above related to the contract and workforce, to its regulatory entities, the NEPR and the Authority for Public-Private Partnerships (AAPP), who are very soft in their oversight of LUMA.

LUMA fails by far in its performance metrics. For example, the average duration of blackouts in Puerto Rico between April 2023 and March 2024 was 1,414 minutes, or almost 24 hours (the average in the United States in 2022 was almost 6 hours). The NEPR established that for LUMA to be in compliance, it must not exceed 1,243 minutes (20.7 hours).

The CPI investigated to find out what would happen in case of non-compliance with the minimum performance conditions that would cause the cancellation of the LUMA contract, but the NEPR and the AAPP passed the hot potato to each other and avoided answering clearly and accurately how long LUMA can breach its contract without its being cancelled. At the moment, LUMA operates under an extension without a term to the original contract that expired in November 2022 granted by Governor Pierluisi, a contract that does not have any penalty for non-compliance to LUMA. It is truly crazy. 

What awaits Puerto Rico with Genera in charge of electricity generation?

After Hurricane María, the federal government and the Fiscal Oversight Management Board (FOMB, appointed by Congress through the PROMESA law), decided that the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) should be privatized before funds from FEMA and other federal agencies for grid reconstruction could be disbursed (read here, in Spanish the story of the politicization and slow-motion destruction of PREPA since the 1950s that led to the privatization of the energy system). This was an ill-advised move given the disastrous privatization experience with not one, but two water utility management private companies in the 1990s.

Back then, those contracts were canceled by the Puerto Rican government for failing to improve service and meet minimum performance standards. That was only possible because the privatization contracts had clauses that allowed Puerto Rico to rescind them in case of bad performance, and at least those two companies had actual experience in managing water delivery systems. But those lessons were not heeded, and in June 2023, PREPA handed over the operation of its generation fleet to the private company Genera.  

New Fortress Energy (NFE), Genera’s parent company, has no experience with renewables and specializes in methane gas. NFE highlighted four themes in their pitch as selected by the AAPP. First, they said, consumers would reap significant cost savings through fuel management and operations optimization. Second, they promised improved reliability and efficiency of the generation system with a focus on distributed energy and microgrids; Third, they said they would retire obsolete plants while simultaneously ensuring reliable, low-cost, and cleaner generation at load centers to support the transition to renewable energy; and fourth, they made a commitment to local hiring and plans to recruit, train, and incentivize employees.  

In a report this year to its shareholders, New Fortress Energy leadership stated its plan to replace the aging generating fleet in Puerto Rico with methane gas units, saying that solar power and storage would be complementary to the generation mix. Clearly, there is not a clear pathway for Genera to advance the transition towards renewables that is critically needed in the Puerto Rican grid and is also mandated by the 2019 Energy Public Policy Law. 

One year after taking over, Genera says that fuel management and operations optimizations will produce savings of $875 million between now and 2028 and that half of the savings would go to PREPA to reduce consumer bills. The company says it is focused on stabilizing and increasing generation, which fluctuates widely and often causes blackouts when aging generating units go out of service. But the fact is that Genera, like LUMA, does not have the personnel with the knowledge to operate and maintain the plants because they fired them, ignoring PREPA labor union UTIER’s collective bargaining agreements. And their specialization in methane gas means that they have an obvious incentive to promote fossil fuels and not renewables.  

After Tropical Storm Ernesto passed, the generation deficit that Genera seems unable to overcome was evident. On Thursday night after Ernesto, a fire at a substation left nearly 100,000 customers without service in the Carolina region. The next day, the Aguirre power plant in the south went offline, leaving around 100,000 more customers without power. To top it off, on Tuesday, nearly a week after Ernesto, another 100,000 were left without power during peak consumption hours in a repeat of the failures at Aguirre.

What do LUMA and Genera do with the money they receive from Congress and the people of Puerto Rico?

LUMA’s budget for fiscal year 2024-2025 is $693 million, provided by the government of Puerto Rico and earmarked for the operation and maintenance of the electric transmission and distribution system. LUMA also charges an annual fee to operate the system, the total of which is expected to add up to $500 million between 2021 and 2025. However, LUMA has postponed its maintenance plans, as in June it suspended plans to make improvements to some 100,000 lighting poles, repair underground circuits, and mitigate fires, a project valued at $65 million due to “budgetary problems.” LUMA says that in addition to those $65 million, they are missing another $45 million to be able to carry out the improvements.  

Genera’s contract provides $15 million for transition expenses and an annual fee of $22.5 million for the first five years, which will be reduced after the fifth year to a minimum of $5 million. It also includes incentives of up to $100 million for savings on operating expenses, compliance with occupational safety standards and environmental and fuel purchase recommendations. What the contract does not include are incentives or penalties related to meeting renewable energy generation goals of a minima of 40% by 2025, 60% by 2040 and 100% in renewable sources by 2050, as mandated by the 2019 Energy Public Policy Act.

Generation units will continue to be owned by PREPA because Genera will only be responsible for the operation, maintenance and eventual retirement of obsolete units, which raises much concern about the emphasis that Genera will place on the development of renewable energy. 

Puerto Rico needs renewable energy

The climate crisis, public debt, rate hikes, and dependency on fossil fuels strangle the bottom line for Puerto Ricans. The mismanagement and lack of oversight of the Puerto Rican energy system occurs in the context of an unprecedented climate crisis that brings more destructive storms to the Caribbean, which intensify rapidly in short periods of time, and which bring more rain.

The islands, sovereign or not, pay high and highly variable costs for fossil fuels, largely due to the volatility of their prices in global markets. Fossil fuels account for 94% of electricity generation in Puerto Rico. These costs are the main reason for the multiple increases in rates according to LUMA. Agreed. So, why not transition to renewable sources? Renewable energy can solve the uncertainty in the face of fluctuating fossil fuel prices.  

The following graph shows the cost per kilowatt-hour for residential electricity consumption in Puerto Rico and the United States. Clearly, these costs are much higher in Puerto Rico. These prices include increases in bills and fuel costs. 

Residential electricity rates costs have increased dramatically in Puerto Rico and are much higher than the average in the United States. Note the sharp jump just after Hurricane Maria and the upward trend since 2021. Energy Information Administration Form https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861m/  Priorities must be established that benefit the people of Puerto Rico, not private interests

Another important context is that the FOMB, which has absolute control over Puerto Rico’s budgets and plans, prioritizes Puerto Rico’s creditors and not the energy system. In its fiscal plan to restructure PREPA’s debt, the FOMB recognizes that rate increases could be used to transform the energy grid into a modern, efficient, and clean (i.e., fossil-free) entity. But in the same statement they choose to use the money from the rate increases to pay creditors. One of the principles of a bankruptcy plan should be to give PREPA the necessary resources to provide quality electric service, so the board should set aside funds for this before paying creditors. 

LUMA, Genera, the FOMB, lack of accountability, climate change. The unsustainable situation in the electrical system and the risks to which it exposes the population of Puerto Rico have been aggravated by handing over the electric generation, transmission and distribution resources to private interests with zero accountability mechanisms, who were welcome with open arms to come and profit from the millions of dollars allocated by FEMA after Hurricane María. Even though Puerto Rico’s 2019 Energy Public Policy Act mandates substantial progress in renewable energy goals sources by 2050, it barely reaches 5% today.  

Currently, Puerto Rico has 14 billion dollars ($14,000,000,000) in federal funds to rebuild the electrical grid. The problem is not so much the availability of funds, but rather the implementation by the public and private agencies mentioned, which obtusely ignore studies such as Queremos Sol and PR100 that demonstrate the viability of reducing hydrocarbon imports while meeting energy demand in Puerto Rico. 

Clearly, the privatization of generation, transmission, and distribution into private hands has contributed to exacerbating the underlying problem, which is the stubborn insistence on hydrocarbons and the lack of investment in the transition to renewable sources. By handing over the grid to private interests, as recent administrations in Puerto Rico and the FOMB have done, they have enabled the parent companies of LUMA and Genera to profit from millions of federal dollars without having the authority or willingness to address the underlying issues in terms of the needs of Puerto Ricans. 

The energy crossroads in which Puerto Rico finds itself is complex, and here I have only outlined some of its characteristics. The solutions lie within a large and complex web of federal and Puerto Rican agencies, multinational companies, and communities in Puerto Rico, but they should follow a very simple logic: prioritize the stability of the electrical system to ensure its functionality both in everyday life in Puerto Rico and during emergency situations such as storms, hurricanes, and floods—events that will become increasingly destructive as climate change progresses. 

Here are some potential solutions:

• The combined $14 billion dollars available to LUMA and Genera must be spent wisely so that PREPA can be resourced to provide adequate electricity services; 

• NEPR and AAPP have to fulfill their oversight function, clarify the minimum performance conditions to maintain the LUMA and Genera contracts, and establish and enforce penalties for poor performance;  

• Respect UTIER’s collective bargaining agreements and rehire Puerto Rican union workers with the experience and knowledge to keep the system running;  

• The FOMB must allocate, in its debt adjustment plan, a sufficiently large amount to enable the transition of the AEE to a modern and efficient company, with a clear path towards compliance with the Energy Public Policy Act.  

• Integrate into the search for renewable energy solutions the community-led expertise and science in studies such as Queremos Sol and PR100, made up of broad coalitions of vulnerable communities, scientists, community-based renewable energy experts, and private sector actors. 

El 13 de agosto, la tormenta tropical Ernesto se intensificó rápidamente justo antes de pegarle a Puerto Rico y las Islas Vírgenes. La intensificación y trayectoria merecieron aviso de huracán para las Islas Vírgenes tanto como para las islas municipio de Vieques y Culebra.

A pesar de no tocar tierra en ninguno de los dos archipiélagos, Ernesto trajo consigo vientos de hasta 50 millas por hora (80,5 kilómetros por hora) y hasta 10 pulgadas (25,5 cm) de lluvia en Puerto Rico. Al día siguiente, Puerto Rico amaneció con más de 728.000 abonados (casi la mitad del total) sin servicio eléctrico, miles sin agua potable (debido a que muchas comunidades dependen de la electricidad para bombear agua), y alertas de inundación a través de toda la isla.  

Afortunadamente no se reportaron muertes debido al paso de la tormenta. Pero no pasa desapercibido el frágil estado de la infraestructura energética en Puerto Rico. Siete años después de que el huracán María devastara a Puerto Rico y resultara en el apagón más grande y extenso en la historia de Estados Unidos (80% de la población se quedó sin luz y algunas comunidades no se les restableció el servicio por un año), una vez más la isla se enfrenta a debilitantes apagones que afectan la mitad de la población.

Nuestra población se ve forzada a tirar a la basura alimentos perecederos, muchos no pueden usar equipo médico para dializar pacientes en casa, o no pueden refrescarse en sus hogares ante el calor peligroso tras la tormenta.  

Empresas privadas eléctricas operan sin fiscalización ni penalidad alguna por incumplimiento de obligaciones y niveles de servicio 

LUMA, el consorcio privado encargado de la distribución eléctrica, no es capaz de mantener de manera confiable el vital servicio eléctrico en la isla. La prueba más reciente previo a la tormenta tropical Ernesto ocurrió en junio del corriente, cuando más de 340.000 abonados se quedaron sin luz en medio de una terrible ola de calor. Esto preocupa al ente regulatorio energético, el Negociado de Energía de Puerto Rico (NEPR), quien recientemente exigió a LUMA explicaciones ante el incremento de 19% registrado en interrupciones en el servicio eléctrico entre 2023 y 2024.

¿Y porqué tantas interrupciones? Risiblemente, LUMA dice que se dio a la tarea de remover la vegetación descuidada ya que ésta es “la causa principal de las interrupciones de servicio en Puerto Rico“, declaración engañosa según el Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (CPI). De acuerdo con LUMA, si la culpa no la tiene el follaje, la tiene la fauna: ratones, iguanas, gatos, y monos son todos sospechosos de causar los apagones en la isla. Todo menos su propia incompetencia y negligencia. 

Enfurece que a casi siete años del Huracán María, del colchón de $750 millones que los contribuyentes en Puerto Rico fueron forzados a aportar para que LUMA entrara al mercado, de haber despedido a los celadores de línea cuyos contratos sindicales fueron desconocidos por LUMA, de por lo menos siete alzas en las tarifas por kilovatio-hora (después que LUMA prometiera que no habrían dichas alzas), esta es la hora que Puerto Rico no tiene luz de manera confiable ni a precios que la mayoría de nuestra gente pueda pagar. 

Y es que a LUMA se le permite operar de la manera más descabelladamente posible, empezando por todas las irregularidades mencionadas anteriormente relacionadas al contrato y personal, hasta las entidades fiscalizadoras, el NEPR y la Autoridad para las Alianzas Público-Privadas (AAPP), quienes son muy blandengues en su fiscalización de LUMA. LUMA incumple por mucho en sus métricas de rendimiento.

Por ejemplo, la duración promedio de los apagones en Puerto Rico entre abril de 2023 y marzo de 2024 fue de 1.414 minutos, o casi 24 horas (el promedio en Estados Unidos en 2022 fue de casi 6 horas). El NEPR estableció que para LUMA estar en cumplimiento no debe rebasar los 1.243 minutos (20,7 horas).  El CPI indagó para saber que pasaría en caso de incumplimiento con las condiciones mínimas de rendimiento que provocarían la cancelación del contrato de LUMA, pero el NEPR y la AAPP se pasaron la papa caliente uno al otro y evitaron contestar con claridad y exactitud hasta cuándo puede LUMA incumplir su contrato sin que el mismo sea cancelado.

Al momento LUMA opera bajo una extensión sin término al contrato original que expiró en noviembre de 2022 y otorgada por el gobernador Pierluisi, contrato que no cuenta con penalización alguna por incumplimiento a LUMA. Es una verdadera locura. 

¿Qué le espera a Puerto Rico con Genera al mando de la generación eléctrica? 

Después del huracán María, el gobierno federal y la Junta de Control Fiscal (en inglés Fiscal Oversight Management Board, FOMB) establecida por el Congreso mediante la ley PROMESA, decidieron que la Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica (AEE) sería privatizada antes de que pudiera recibir fondos federales de FEMA y de otras agencias federales para reconstruir la red (lean aquí la historia de la politización y destrucción en cámara lenta de la AEE que llevó a la privatización del sistema energético).

Esta fue una decisión imprudente, dado el desastroso experimento de privatización con no una, sino dos empresas privadas de gestión de servicios de agua en la década de 1990. En ese entonces, esos contratos fueron cancelados por el gobierno de Puerto Rico por no mejorar el servicio ni cumplir con requisitos mínimos de rendimiento. Eso solo fue posible porque los contratos de privatización incluían cláusulas que permitían al gobierno de Puerto Rico rescindirlos en caso de mal desempeño; por lo menos esas dos empresas tenían experiencia en la gestión de sistemas de agua potable. Pero esas lecciones no fueron tomadas en cuenta, y en junio de 2023, la AEE entregó las operaciones de su flota de generación a la empresa privada Genera. 

New Fortress Energy, la empresa matriz de Genera, no tiene experiencia en energía renovable y se especializa en gas metano. New Fortress resaltó cuatro temas de la propuesta seleccionada por la AAPP. Primero, señaló que lograría un ahorro significativo de costos en beneficio de los consumidores mediante la gestión de combustible y la optimización de operaciones. Segundo, que mejoraría la confiabilidad y eficiencia del sistema de generación con un enfoque en energía distribuida y microrredes. Tercero, que retirará centrales obsoletas, garantizando simultáneamente una generación confiable, de bajo costo y más limpia en los centros de carga para apoyar la transición a las energías renovables. Por último, dijo tener compromiso con la contratación local y planes para reclutar, capacitar e incentivar a los empleados.

En un informe este año a sus accionistas, el liderato de New Fortress Energy declaró su plan de reemplazar la flota generatriz obsoleta en Puerto Rico con unidades de gas metano, y que la energía y almacenamiento solar sería complementaria. O sea, que no se puede vislumbrar claramente cómo la gestión de Genera adelantará el mandato de un mínimo de 40% para el 2025, 60% para el 2040 y 100% de generación en base a fuentes renovables para el 2050, contenido en la Ley de Política Pública Energética de 2019.

A un año de asumir, Genera dice que a través de la gestión de combustible y optimización de operaciones producirían ahorros de $875 millones de aquí al 2028 y que la mitad de los ahorros irían a la AEE para reducir costos a los consumidores. La empresa dice estar enfocada en estabilizar e incrementar la generación, la cual fluctúa mucho y provoca apagones a menudo cuando las obsoletas unidades de generación salen de servicio. Pero el hecho es que Genera, al igual que LUMA, no cuenta con el personal con el conocimiento para operar y dar mantenimiento a las plantas porque los despidieron al desconocer los acuerdos de negociación colectiva del sindicato de trabajadores UTIER. Y su especialización en gas metano es un incentivo obvio para promover la ampliación de combustibles fósiles y no de fuentes renovables.  

Pasada la tormenta tropical Ernesto, el déficit de generación que Genera no parece poder superar quedó evidenciado. Durante la noche del jueves después de Ernesto, un incendio en una subestación dejó sin servicio a casi 100.000 abonados en la región de Carolina, y al día siguiente la Central Aguirre en el sur salió de servicio, dejando sin luz a unos 100.000 abonados. Para rematar, el martes, casi una semana después de Ernesto, otros 100.000 quedaron sin luz en horas pico de consumo cuando se repitieron las averías en Aguirre.

¿Qué hacen LUMA y Genera con el dinero que reciben del Congreso y del pueblo de Puerto Rico? 

El presupuesto de LUMA para el año fiscal 2024-2025 es de $693 millones, es aportado por el gobierno de Puerto Rico y está destinado a la operación y manutención del sistema de transmisión y distribución eléctrica. LUMA también cobra una tarifa anual por operar el sistema, el total de la cual se espera sume $500 millones de dólares entre 2021 y 2025.

Sin embargo, LUMA ha postergado sus planes de mantenimiento, ya que en junio suspendió planes para hacer mejoras a unos 100.000 postes de alumbrado, reparación de circuitos soterrados, y mitigación de incendios, proyecto valorado en $65 millones de dólares por “problemas presupuestarios”. LUMA dice que en adición a esos $65 millones, le faltan otros $45 millones para poder llevar a cabo las mejoras. 

El contrato de Genera le otorga $15 millones para gastos de transición y una tarifa anual de $22,5 millones durante los primeros cinco años, la cual se reducirá después del quinto año hasta un mínimo de $5 millones. También incluye incentivos de hasta $100 millones por economizar en gastos operacionales, cumplimiento de normas de seguridad ocupacional y recomendaciones ambientales y de compra de combustible. Lo que no incluye el contrato son incentivos ni penalidades relacionados al cumplimiento de metas de generación con recursos renovables como lo manda la Ley de Política Pública Energética. Las unidades de generación continuarán siendo propiedad de la AEE porque Genera sólo se encargará de la operación, mantenimiento y eventual retiro de las unidades obsoletas, lo cual contribuye a la preocupación en cuanto al énfasis que Genera pondrá en el desarrollo de energía renovable.  

Puerto Rico necesita energía renovable 

La crisis climática, la deuda pública, las alzas sin fin en tarifas y la dependencia en combustibles fósiles estrangulan a las y los boricuas. Todo este mal manejo y falta de fiscalización del sistema energético boricua ocurre en el contexto de una crisis climática sin precedentes que trae al Caribe tormentas más destructivas, que se intensifican rápidamente en cortos períodos de tiempo, y que traen más lluvia.

Las islas, soberanas o no, pagan altos y altamente variables costos por los combustibles fósiles, en gran parte por la volatilidad de sus precios en los mercados globales. El 94% de la generación eléctrica en Puerto Rico se lleva a cabo con combustibles fósiles. Estos costos son la razón principal de los múltiples aumentos en tarifas según LUMA.  De acuerdo. Entonces, ¿por qué no transicionar a fuentes renovables? La energía renovable puede solucionar la incertidumbre frente a la fluctuación de los precios de los fósiles. 

La siguiente gráfica muestra el costo por kilovatio-hora para consumo eléctrico residencial en Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos. Claramente, se puede ver que estos costos son mucho más altos en Puerto Rico, debido en gran medida al costo de comprar combustibles fósiles—algo que LUMA no controla.

Los costos de las tarifas residenciales por consumo eléctrico han aumentado dramáticamente en Puerto Rico y son mucho más altas que el costo promedio en Estados Unidos. Nótese el salto vertiginoso justo después del Huracán María y la tendencia al alza desde 2021.  Fuente de datos: Energy Information Administration Form https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861m/  Las prioridades deben ser establecidas en beneficio del pueblo de Puerto Rico, no de intereses particulares 

Otro contexto importante es que la Junta de Control Fiscal, quien tiene control absoluto sobre los presupuestos y planes de Puerto Rico, prioriza a los acreedores de Puerto Rico y no al sistema energético. En su plan fiscal para reestructurar la deuda de la AEE, la Junta reconoce que las alzas en tarifas pudieran ser usadas para transformar la red energética en una entidad moderna, eficiente, y limpia (i.e., libre de fósiles). Pero en la misma declaración optan por usar el dinero del alza en las tarifas para pagar a los acreedores.  Uno de los principios de un plan de quiebra sería dejarle a la AEE los recursos necesarios para proveer un servicio eléctrico de calidad, de manera que la Junta debería reservar fondos para ello antes de pagar a los acreedores.  

LUMA, Genera, la Junta, falta de fiscalización, cambio climático. La situación insostenible en el sistema eléctrico y los riesgos a los que expone a la población de Puerto Rico han sido agravados por la entrega del sistema de producción, transmisión y distribución energética a intereses particulares sin fiscalización real, a quienes se les abrió las puertas para venir a lucrar con los millones de dólares asignados por FEMA después del Huracán María. A pesar de que la Ley de Política Pública Energética creó mandatos para incrementar sustancialmente la generación en base a fuentes renovables para el 2050, apenas llega hoy día al 5%.  

Al presente, Puerto Rico cuenta con 14 mil millones de dólares ($14.000.000.000) en fondos federales para reconstruir la red eléctrica. El problema no es tanto la disponibilidad de fondos, sino la implementación por parte de las agencias públicas y privadas mencionadas, las cuales obtusamente ignoran estudios como el de Queremos Sol y el de PR100 que demuestran la viabilidad de reducir las importaciones de hidrocarburos a la vez que se cumple con la demanda energética en Puerto Rico.  

Claramente, la privatización de la generación, transmisión y distribución a manos privadas ha contribuido a acrecentar el problema de fondo que es la necia insistencia en hidrocarburos y la falta de inversión en la transición hacia fuentes renovables. Con la entrega a intereses privados que los gobiernos recientes en Puerto Rico y la Junta han hecho del patrimonio energético, han posibilitado el que las empresas matrices de LUMA y Genera se lucren con millones de dólares federales pero sin facultades ni disposición de atender los problemas de fondo en función de las necesidades de las y los puertorriqueños.  

Soluciones

La encrucijada energética en la que se encuentra Puerto Rico es compleja y aquí apenas he esbozado algunas de sus características. Las soluciones radican en una madeja grande y complicada de agencias federales y puertorriqueñas, empresas multinacionales y comunidades en Puerto Rico pero las mismas deberían seguir una lógica muy sencilla: priorizar la estabilidad del sistema eléctrico en función asegurar su funcionamiento tanto en la vida cotidiana en Puerto Rico como durante situaciones de emergencia como tormentas, huracanes, inundaciones—eventos que serán cada vez más destructivos en la medida que el cambio climático avanza.  

Aquí propongo unas posibles soluciones 

• Los 14 mil millones de dólares disponibles para LUMA y Genera deben ser invertidos de manera prudente para que la AEE tenga los recursos necesarios para proveer un servicio eléctrico confiable;
• NEPR y AAPP tienen que cumplir su función fiscalizadora, clarificar cuáles son las condiciones de rendimiento para mantener los contratos de LUMA y Genera, y establecer y hacer cumplir penalidades por bajo rendimiento; 

• Respetar los acuerdos de negociación colectiva de UTIER y contratar a los trabajadores sindicalistas puertorriqueños con la experiencia y conocimiento para mantener el sistema en funcionamiento; 

• La Junta de Control Fiscal debe destinar, en su plan de ajuste de la deuda, una partida suficientemente grande como para posibilitar la transición de la AEE a una empresa moderna y eficiente, con una trayectoria clara hacia el cumplimiento de la Ley de Política Pública Energética.; 

• Integrar en la búsqueda de soluciones de energía renovable la experiencia comunitaria y la ciencia de estudios como Queremos Sol y PR100, conformados por amplias coaliciones de comunidades vulnerables, científicos, expertos en energía renovable a nivel comunitario y actores del sector privado.

It is halfway through August and this year’s Danger Season, the period between May and October when climate change makes summers extremely hot and brings more intense hurricanes, heat waves, flooding, and wildfires. Just this past week, the US was hit with record heat, wildfires, and a hurricane, with 2024 already ranking second for the number of billion-dollar disasters recorded. 

In our Danger Season tracker, we are keeping tabs on how many people in the US, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands have been under heat, storm, flooding, or fire weather alerts issued by the National Weather Service.

Danger Season got a quick jump start early this year. By May 7, nearly one-third of the population had been under at least one alert, a number that jumped to half the population (nearly 170 million persons) by May 20. Extreme weather alerts continued to spread quickly throughout the US. On June 2, 75% (three-quarters) of all people in the country had faced at least one alert, and by June 22 that number reached 95%.

As of August 13, nearly everyone in the US has faced an extreme weather alert, and we still have most of August, as well as September and October to go. Only 79 counties and municipios (the county equivalent in Puerto Rico) throughout the country representing about 1% of the country’s population and located mostly in Michigan, Minnesota, Alaska, and Wisconsin have not faced an alert as of August 13. 

Who are most vulnerable and most impacted? 

In 2022, we reported that counties with at least 21 heat alerts (amounting to nearly three weeks’ worth of heat alerts though not necessarily in a row) were mostly in a handful of states in the Midwest and South. In these communities, poverty levels tend to be higher than the national average, and many communities lack the economic means to protect themselves during extremely hot weather and any other type of extreme weather.  

To determine which populations may be more vulnerable to the extreme climate impacts that occur during Danger Season, I relied on the White House’s Climate Justice and Economic Screening Tool (CEJST). CEJST does not include race or ethnicity, instead classifying communities as “disadvantaged” if they meet at least one of multiple categories of climate and economic burdens such as expected losses from flooding, as well as disparities related to energy, health, housing, and transportation. Though it omits race and ethnicity, the tool’s results confirm what environmental justice advocates have said for a long time—that race is the strongest predictor of climate and pollution burdens.  

In 2024, many counties that have at least 25% or more of their communities deemed disadvantaged also had at least 21 days of extreme heat alerts so far this Danger Season. And many of these counties have large metro areas where lots of Latinos, African Americans, and other people of color live. And on August 2, Climate Central’s Climate Shift Index reminded us how much climate change is responsible for the brutal heat, as nearly half of the US population was under heat alerts that were three times as likely to exist due to climate change.  

Many disadvantaged communities across the Pacific Northwest, the Southwest and parts of the Great Plains and the South have faced multiple extreme heat alerts between May 1 and August 13 of 2024.

Not just heat, but atmospheric conditions that lead to wildfires prevailed in the Southwest and Pacific Northwest. Fire weather alerts are issued by the National Weather Service when the atmospheric conditions that make wildfires more likely are ripe, such as low humidity, temperatures above 75⁰F, and wind speed in excess of 15 miles per hour. And similar to heat alerts, most places with a high total number of fire weather alerts (I picked 14 in this case, or two weeks’ worth of alerts—again, not necessarily consecutive) are also home to many disadvantaged communities. Indeed, in July, large wildfires broke out across these regions and forced thousands to evacuate. These fires destroy people’s homes and other property, and their risks and costs keep climbing.  

Many disadvantaged communities across the Pacific Northwest and the Southwest have faced multiple extreme fire weather alerts between May 1 and August 13 of 2024.

As I write this, rain has been pouring almost uninterruptedly in Washington, DC and the surrounding suburbs where I live, as Tropical Storm Debby makes its way northeast. It’s much worse in South Carolina, where people faced record rainfall, extensive flooding, and tornadoes. Unfortunately, it’s not the first time this year that a storm has pummeled communities. In late April and the first days of May, eastern and southeastern Texas was flooded with heavy rains. Then Hurricane Beryl, after a long tour that began early in the southeast part of the Atlantic, ran roughshod across Houston and other nearby parts of Texas, knocking out power for 2.7 million folks across the state and costing upwards of one billion dollars in grid repairs.  The map below captures areas that have had at least 7 flood alerts so far this Danger Season. 

Many disadvantaged communities across coastal and inland areas faced multiple flood weather alerts between May 1 and August 13 of 2024.

During Danger Season, many of these impacts occur simultaneously. Just on August 9 alone, millions of people were under heat flood alerts from most of Texas through the South and Southeast and under flood alerts in most of the Eastern Seaboard. And some counties such as Florida were under both types of alerts on the same day.

Danger Season alerts on Friday, August 9, 2024. Heat alerts in yellow cover a large swath including the Southwest and Southeastern US, while flood alerts (in green) show widespread threats from Tropical Storm Debby across the Eastern Seaboard. Blue counties in Florida indicate where heat and flood alerts were issued on the same day.  What could be in store for the rest of the 2024 Danger Season?  

August through September are peak hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. NOAA just revised down their May hurricane season forecast slightly, but it still expects an above-normal season with 8 to 13 hurricanes (and 4 to 7 of these predicted to be Category 3 or higher), a worrisome number of potentially catastrophic events. At the moment, Tropical Storm Ernesto has prompted a tropical storm watch for Puerto Rico and a hurricane watch for the US Virgin Islands and the islands Vieques and Culebra, two inhabited islands that are part of the Puerto Rican archipelago.

In terms of wildfires, the National Interagency Fire Center’s outlook for August through October—a time that is often the height of the wildfire season—shows significant potential for wildfires in the Pacific Northwest and parts of the Southwest. And we are not out of the hot season yet—the National Weather Service’s Heat Risk tool is forecasting moderate or worse heat-related impacts mostly in some parts of the Southern United States for this week, and it’s too early to tell with certainty what temperatures will look like before the end of Danger Season in October.

We need immediate and sustained action

Climate change is fueling this new dangerous regime of extreme weather. Our government and industries need a sustained and steep downward path to reduce heat-trapping emissions, and we also need continuous resources and additional measures such as investments to protect people from the Danger Season impacts that are happening now. In addition, our own UCS experts have recommendations across these climate impacts from how to redress injustices brought on by hurricanes and heat in coastal regions, to protecting people and property from climate-fueled wildfires, as well as the critical infrastructure on which we rely to conduct our daily lives.