Feed aggregator

Exclusive: Report by risk experts says previous assessments ignored severe effects of climate crisis

The global economy could face 50% loss in gross domestic product (GDP) between 2070 and 2090 from the catastrophic shocks of climate change unless immediate action by political leaders is taken to decarbonise and restore nature, according to a new report.

The stark warning from risk management experts the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) hugely increases the estimate of risk to global economic wellbeing from climate change impacts such as fires, flooding, droughts, temperature rises and nature breakdown. In a report with scientists at the University of Exeter, published on Thursday, the IFoA, which uses maths and statistics to analyse financial risk for businesses and governments, called for accelerated action by political leaders to tackle the climate crisis.

Continue reading...

La gestión de Biden estará en los libros de historia como un interregno entre dos mandatos de Donald Trump, una pausa en medio de un periodo caótico de cambio, para bien o para mal.

Biden’s disastrous debate performance highlighted age concerns.

Health hazards from soot and smoke blown indoors onto furniture and walls can linger for months: “Wind will get through every crack.”

I’ve been writing about climate change for years. I know my graphs won’t change minds, but facts matter

2025 has not started well, and you should be bloody angry.

We are less than five months from the federal election and both major parties’ climate change policies are an amalgam of indolence and lies.

Continue reading...

Do these disasters signal a shift in social conditions?

The agency offers different types of financial assistance after disasters. The fastest is a one-time payment of $770.

Will water soon be a marketable commodity or a priceless public good?

There’s a scene in the film Mad Max: Fury Road where the evil ruler Immortan Joe, gazing down from a cliff upon his parched, emaciated subjects, turns two turbines, and water gushes from three gigantic sluices. The wretched masses surge forward to catch the deluge in their pots and bowls. And as imperiously as he opened the gates, Joe shuts them. “Do not become addicted to water,” he roars. “It will take hold of you.” But, of course, he already has taken hold of them by withholding, essentially, life.

We don’t have to await the dystopian future for the water wars to begin. The struggle over water, between private interests and the public good, the powerful and the weak, is raging now. From Love Canal to Flint, Michigan; Bolivia to Ukraine to Tunisia; budget-cutting, privatization, corporate malfeasance and climate crises are conspiring to create political violence, mass migration, property damage and death.

Continue reading...

When it comes to gas exports and competition with China, the two administrations share a similar vision, the top U.S. energy diplomat says.

A century of foolhardy development, including public subsidies for rebuilding in the firebelt, hugely contributed to this tragedy, writes our architecture critic. LA must rethink – and build upwards not outwards

‘Crime don’t climb” is one of the glib mottoes long used by Los Angeles real estate agents to help sell the multimillion dollar homes in the hills that surround the sprawling metropolis. Residents of the lush ridges and winding canyons can rest assured, in their elevated green perches – safely removed from the smog-laden, supposedly crime-ridden flatlands beneath. What the realtors neglect to mention, however, is that, while crime rarely ascends the hills, flames certainly do. And that the very things that make this sun-soaked city’s dream homes so attractive – lush landscaping, quaint timber construction, raised terrain and narrow, twisting lanes – are the very things that make them burn so well. They create blazing infernos that, as we have seen over the past week, are tragically difficult to extinguish.

LA’s ferocious wildfires have seen an area about three times the size of Manhattan incinerated. At least 12,000 homes have burned to the ground and 150,000 people have been evacuated, as entire neighbourhoods become smouldering ruins. Twenty-five people have died, 24 more are missing. Estimates suggest the cost of damage and economic losses could reach $250bn, making it the costliest wildfire in US history – mainly due to the flames torching some of the highest-value real estate in the country. And it’s not over yet. The city is bracing for further destruction, as weather forecasts suggest winds might pick up again.

Continue reading...

Air Resources Board withdraws request for approval of rules to limit pollution from diesel trains and big rigs

California’s efforts to limit pollution from diesel-powered trains and big rigs were stalled in anticipation of pushback from the incoming Trump administration.

The California Air Resources Board said on Tuesday it withdrew its requests for federal approval to implement stricter emissions rules for locomotives and semi-trucks because the US Environmental Protection Agency had yet to approve them. The decision came just days before Joe Biden leaves office.

Continue reading...

Global heating means atmosphere can drive both extreme droughts and floods with rapid switches

Climate “whiplash” between extremely wet and dry conditions, which spurred catastrophic fires in Los Angeles, is increasing exponentially around the world because of global heating, analysis has found.

Climate whiplash is a rapid swing between very wet or dry conditions and can cause far more harm to people than individual extreme events alone. In recent years, whiplash events have been linked to disastrous floods in east Africa, Pakistan and Australia and to worsening heatwaves in Europe and China.

Continue reading...

Luke Evans, whose work has been called ‘breathtakingly new’, says he has lost experimental data and all equipment

A scientist in Liverpool has lost more than a decade of work after the prefabricated building that served as his research lab was destroyed in a suspected arson attack.

Luke Evans, the chief executive of Scintilla CME and a PhD student at the University of Liverpool, was due to submit his work in March. His research centres on advanced fuel cell technology that converts organic waste into clean energy, and could be crucial in the transition away from fossil fuels.

Continue reading...

Forecasters warn of ‘particularly dangerous weather situation’ in California; Gavin Newsom hits back at House speaker for ‘politicizing’ tragedy

• Big oil pushed to kill bill that would have made them pay for wildfire disasters
• Tell us about financial consequences you are facing

LA mayor, Karen Bass, has shared a phone number for residents who have evacuated to get assistance in finding and retrieving pets in evacuation areas.

Posting on X, Bass wrote:

Pets are family.

The City is making help available to find and retrieve pets in evacuation areas.

Continue reading...

The scope of the Cop26 net zero banking alliance may have been limited, but the exodus of six US banks signifies a seismic political shift

Last week, as flames began tearing through greater Los Angeles, claiming multiple lives and forcing more than 100,000 people to evacuate, JP Morgan became the sixth major US bank to quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) since the start of December. A smaller story, certainly, but the departure of top US banks from the NZBA in the weeks since Donald Trump’s re-election nonetheless speaks to a seismic political shift prompting major financial institutions to turn away from the climate-related commitments they made in the optimistic years after the Paris agreement.

The NZBA is a voluntary network of global banks committed to “align lending and investment portfolios with net zero emissions by 2050”. It is part of the umbrella Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which counts among its membership dozens of “alliances” covering the various segments of global finance. For its part, the NZBA requires new members to submit science-aligned targets within 18 months of joining, alongside disclosing plans for and status updates on meeting them.

Adrienne Buller is director of The Break Down and the author of The Value of a Whale: on the illusions of green capitalism

Continue reading...

Scientists have a long-standing, and probably well-deserved, reputation as a jargon-prone bunch—and I am no exception (see my post on vapor pressure deficit, for one). Despite this reputation we actually use jargon to avoid confusion and be as precise as possible, ensuring our ideas are clearly understood. This seems straightforward enough for phrases like vapor pressure deficit, which needs to be distinguished from concepts like, for instance, relative humidity. But, scientists have also assigned specific meanings to otherwise ordinary words and phrases, that take on additional nuance and meaning when used in a scientific context.  

Take the word risk. Engineers might use it to mean the likelihood of a bridge collapsing. Economists might use it to mean a potential financial loss. An environmental scientist might use it to signal possible harm to a species of fish or vulnerable habitat. And in casual conversation, risk can mean a general concern or danger. Without specifying the context, the statement ‘The risks of addressing climate change are too large’ could justify almost any decision from reinforcing a bridge to withstand extreme heat to ignoring greenhouse gas emissions because of the financial losses that the fossil fuel industry would incur.  

In the case of the incoming administration, malicious actors use and create this confusion to exploit scientific illiteracy, justify inaction, and cultivate chaos, all of which cause harm to our communities, health and environment. This can take many forms: spreading disinformation, overemphasizing uncertainty, weaponizing ambiguity and nuance, or claiming that existing science is insufficient or incomplete, leading to harmful policies that distort science while maintaining a veneer of credibility. science while maintaining a veneer of credibility.  

In its first iteration, the Trump administration launched a coordinated assault on science and scientific integrity, and so far, all signs point to more of the same the second time around. To counter this, it’s critical to recognize and interrogate the language that will shape public discourse in the next administration. Here are three critical concepts that everyone who recognizes the essential value of science should know—and be prepared to defend against bad-faith attacks. 

What is “Best Available Science?” 

Best available science is the most reliable, valid, up-to-date, and relevant, empirical knowledge, and is referenced in laws, regulations, and court rulings, from the criteria for listing new species and developing recovery plans as part of the Endangered Species Act to the regulatory structure used in decision-making by the Food & Drug Administration for approvals and labels.  Science is dynamic and constantly evolving, meaning that the best available science builds on this on-going cycle of scientific inquiry as well as data and evidence from a range of sources. Inherently, best available science also relies on peer review, and draws on experts across disciplines.  

In the decision-making process of many government agencies, expert panels and advisory committees serve this critical function of analyzing existing evidence. These panels are composed of experienced researchers who are in the know about cutting edge research, the strengths and limitations of methodologies, and the latest debates on specific details. In the first Trump administration, we saw these panels and committees disbanded or downsized at the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Health and Human Services, among others. Last year’s Supreme Court decision overturning the Chevron doctrine further endangered the use of best available science in decision making by shifting power from experts within governmental agencies to the judiciary.  

Further, best available science also uses specific language (and, in some cases, jargon) to accurately describe scientific findings, like using specific forest type designations when calculating wildfire emissions or describing the consequences of rule changes on different orders of waterways. The first Trump administration, in some cases, blocked scientists’ ability to do this by, for instance, removing a term such as “climate change” from certain government communications.  

Outside the US, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea reaffirmed the importance of using the best available science in their unanimous advisory opinion outlining countries’ obligations to prevent, reduce, and control pollution in the marine environment, highlighting the importance of scientists engaging across all facets of decision-making.  

Scientific Consensus Explained 

The term “scientific consensus” refers to concepts that have broad agreement among scientists, based on multiple lines of evidence and extensive peer-reviewed research. Examples of where there is scientific consensus include: evolution as the driver of life on earth, the Big Bang as the origin of the universe; and that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is the primary driver of climate change.  This does not signal absolute proof, unanimous agreement, or the end of the scientific process, but consensus does provide a foundation from which scientists can continue to build knowledge to better protect our health, environment and communities.   

In the case of climate change, scientific consensus has led to countless new research questions about how we can adapt to protect our communities from rising seas, intensifying wildfires, and extreme heat. It has also painted a clear picture of how to mitigate future climate change and protect those who are most vulnerable—a fair and fast phase out of fossil fuels.   

The Role of Uncertainty in Building Trustworthy Science 

Quantifying and communicating uncertainty is a key part of any scientific endeavor, and one that scientists go to great lengths to understand and explain. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, widely regarded as the world’s leading body on climate science, has developed an entire system for describing scientific uncertainty and confidence in key findings throughout their reports.   

As I wrote in a blog last year: “Conversationally, uncertainty means something you don’t know — like I’m uncertain what I’m going to have for lunch. But scientifically, uncertainty means how well we know something— more like a confidence range and usually visualized with confidence intervals or error bars depending on the data (I’m 90-95% confident that I’ll be having beans for lunch).” 

When reading a scientific study, the absence of confidence ranges, explanations of methodologies, or other descriptions of how the researchers dealt with uncertainty is a major red flag. While those outside the scientific community might assume that the absence of uncertainty signals unwavering confidence in a finding, to other scientists it signals that the conclusions deserve particularly focused scrutiny.  

In the first Trump administration, we saw the Department of Interior overemphasize uncertainty around climate change in several of its reports, in direct opposition to the scientific consensus.  

Defending Science and Scientific Integrity 

As the second Trump administration looms, protecting rigorous research and scientific integrity is more critical than ever. When key scientific principles like transparency, accountability and continuous inquiry are compromised, as they were during Trump’s first term, the consequences ripple far beyond the scientific community, affecting public health, environmental sustainability, and the resilience of democratic institutions. The deliberate manipulation of scientific findings, whether by suppressing inconvenient truths, overemphasizing uncertainty, or distorting conclusions to fit a narrative, means that the best available science is absent from decision making.  

This erosion of public trust in science creates fertile ground for disinformation campaigns, stalls progress on urgent issues, and prioritizes political or economic agendas over the public good. During the first Trump administration, we saw these tactics in action, from the removal of climate change terminology from government reports to the systematic dismantling of advisory panels critical to applying the best available science to policy decisions.  

Defending science is not just the responsibility of scientists—it requires collective action by policymakers, educators, advocates, and the public. Together, we can ensure that science continues to serve the public good, guiding decision makers in a defensible and robust way toward a healthy, safe, and just future.  

L. Delta Merner, Lead Scientist for the Science Hub for Climate Litigation, contributed to this post. 

I feel like I am safe in saying that we are not thriving on our changing planet – and we will not in the coming decades

My house in Altadena burned down in the wildfires on Wednesday. It all happened quickly. On Tuesday around 7pm, my wife and daughters went to a hotel as a precaution. I left the house with the dogs when the mandatory evacuation order came in around 3am. As best as I can put the timeline together, our home burned down around the same time that the sun came up, and I was able to drive in and see the damage around 2pm.

Neighbors that went in after said it looked like a “war zone”. I have never been in a war zone thankfully, but I didn’t think so. There was nothing violent or chaotic about it. No one stopped me from driving in. There were no sirens. I stood alone – no one else around – in front of my house that was at that point just a fireplace and chimney. The house across the street was about halfway done with burning down, and the house behind ours had just started to burn.

Benjamin Hamlington is a research scientist at Nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a team lead at Nasa Sea Level Change team

Continue reading...

Chris Wright, the founder of a fracking services company, argues that oil and gas are key to alleviating global poverty.

The ongoing disaster will affect residents’ health, local industries, public budgets and the cost of housing for years to come.

World Economic Forum says responses from experts in business, politics and academia also highlight climate crisis

Global leaders have said that escalating armed conflict is the most urgent threat in 2025 but the climate emergency is expected to cause the greatest concern over the next decade, according to the World Economic Forum.

Ahead of its yearly gathering in the Swiss ski resort of Davos next week, the WEF asked more than 900 leaders from business, politics and academia about the risks that most concern them.

Continue reading...