Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

You are here

Climate

California’s Insurance System Faces Crucial Test as Wildfire Losses Mount

NYT Global Warming Climate Change - January 14, 2025 - 16:17
The California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, had just $377 million available last week to pay claims that could reach billions, officials said.
Categories: Climate

LA braces for more fire evacuations as experts warn of new ‘dangerous weather situation’

The Guardian Climate Change - January 14, 2025 - 15:44

Region faces ‘extreme fire risk’ warnings and ‘significant risk of rapid fire spread’ as official death toll expected to rise

As forecasters warn of another “particularly dangerous weather situation” across northern Los Angeles, residents braced for new wildfire evacuation orders, even as the official death toll from last week’s fires in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades was expected to rise.

Los Angeles, and parts of Ventura county to the north, faced “extreme fire risk” warnings through Wednesday, with officials warning of “significant risk of rapid fire spread” due to the Santa Ana winds – which have gusts of up to 75mph – . The “particularly dangerous weather situation” designation is used very rarely, and was designed by meteorologists to signal “the extreme of the extremes”. The winds were predicted to reach near hurricane-force in some areas.

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate

In a First, the E.P.A. Warns of ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Sludge Fertilizer

NYT Global Warming Climate Change - January 14, 2025 - 14:05
Levels of PFAS in sewage sludge used as fertilizer can pose risks that sometimes exceed safety thresholds “by several orders of magnitude,” the agency said.
Categories: Climate

Could Keir Starmer’s AI dream derail his own green energy promise?

The Guardian Climate Change - January 14, 2025 - 13:09

As PM pins hopes on AI, what effect will building energy-hungry datacentres have on Labour’s clean power pledge?

Keir Starmer this week launched a plan to bring a 20-fold increase in the amount of artificial intelligence (AI) computing power under public control by 2030.

But the race to build more electricity hungry AI datacentres over the next five years appears to work against another government target: to plug in enough low-carbon electricity projects to create a clean power system by the same date.

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate

Trump’s Pick for Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, is Wrong on Purpose. Here are the Facts. 

President-elect Trump has nominated Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright to be US Energy Secretary, confirming the fossil fuel industry’s outsized and undue influence in shaping and implementing the Trump Administration’s agenda. Liberty is a leading producer of methane gas through fracking and according to ABC News, Wright donated almost $230,000 to the President-elect’s joint fundraising committee. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Wright’s nomination tomorrow. 

In videos and Congressional testimony, Wright portrays himself as a “truth teller,” while falsely  claiming that climate scientists and renewable energy advocates are deceptive. These performances are textbook examples of disinformation, employing the exact tactics Mr. Wright decries.  

These are dangerous deceptions for someone potentially charged with leading the Department of Energy (DOE), an agency specifically tasked with informing the nation’s energy transition. Should Mr. Wright engage in such tactics during his confirmation hearing, Senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee must not allow him to get away with this ploy.  

The motivation to engage in disinformation comes when accurate information is threatening. Here are the facts. 

The human-caused, fossil fuel-driven, Climate Crisis is here. 

NASA’s Climate Evidence webpage leads with this headline: “There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.” The Fifth National Climate Assessment is equally clear: “Human activities are changing the climate . . . primarily because humans have burned and continue to burn fossil fuels for transportation and energy generation.” 

While Wright acknowledges the reality of climate change, he deliberately misrepresents climate data and research to downplay the seriousness of the problem and to undermine proven solutions including transitioning away from fossil fuels and accelerating the transition to clean energy. He adopts a purposefully shortsighted view when describing the impacts of burning fossil fuels on the world, focusing on profits over people.  

Yes, nations need energy for economic development, but that energy can and should come from clean resources, not dirty fossil fuels. Air and water pollution from fossil fuels is a major public health challenge and catastrophic climate impacts are setting back sustainable development and anti-poverty efforts, especially in lower income nations. The fact that fossil fuel companies have reaped enormous profits in the process is not an argument for more drilling. 

Wright’s frequent focus on the relatively recent past is purposely misleading. As NASA explains, over most of the last 800,000 years, until humans started burning fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 concentrations basically never went below 180ppm and never went above 280ppm. That 100ppm difference, though, was the difference between glacial and interglacial periods. During glacial periods, much of the northern half of North America was covered in an ice sheet a mile thick. That .01% change in CO2 concentration is the difference between a planet humans can live on, and one we cannot

Primarily driven by the burning of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration has increased to more than 420ppm. For roughly every 10ppm increase in CO2 concentrations, we see about 0.1C (nearly 0.2F) of warming. In the last sixty years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown 100 times faster than it did at the close of the last ice age. These are the numbers that must motivate our future energy policy, not the profits generated by the post-World War II oil boom.  

Climate change is making extreme weather more intense and more frequent. 

Leading independent global and U.S. scientific assessments, including from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Climate Assessment, show that climate change is already having significant real-world impacts, and these will worsen as heat-trapping emissions rise. Advances in attribution science also show that climate change is contributing to worsening some types of extreme weather. For example, warmer air and oceans are contributing to more intense hurricanes, with record-breaking amounts of rain and rapidly intensifying windspeeds. 

Wright denies that people are experiencing the extreme weather that they are, in fact, experiencing, and misrepresents the IPCC in the process. In reality, the IPCC (a body comprised of thousands of experts from around the world who synthesize the most recent developments in climate science) writes in their Sixth Assessment Report, Chapter 11 of Working Group 1 on Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate: “It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial time, in particular for temperature extremes.”  

Real-world observations conducted by NOAA show the dramatic increase in billion-dollar extreme weather and climate-related disaster events in the US since 1980. Climate change has contributed to worsening several of these kinds of disasters—including floods, droughts, and wildfires—alongside growing development in risky areas.  

In 2024, at least 568 lives were lost in 27 separate disasters that each reported damages of $1 billion or more, with a total economic cost of at least $182.7 billion. 2025 is already off to a sobering start, with early estimates on the California wildfires ranging as high as $150 billion in damages

Wright’s false claims are shameful and should be particularly difficult to defend during hearings before a Committee which includes Senators Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, whose constituents suffered through the 2023 wildfires; Alex Padilla of California, whose constituents in Los Angeles are losing lives and homes as I write; and other lawmakers representing millions of Americans living through or recovering from disasters made worse by climate change. 

The US can meet its climate targets. 

Wright cites the persistent high price of oil, record profits for fossil fuel companies, and even his own personal wealth as evidence that a transition to renewable energy is not happening. His claim that a transition to a cleaner energy system is impossible because Wright and his allies have succeeded in delaying it is nonsense.  

UCS has documented that a transition to a cleaner energy system is feasible and would result in significant, long-term public health and economic benefits. By rapidly phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to clean energy, the United States can meet its climate targets with lower near-term energy costs and only modest long-term costs. UCS modeling has found enormous economic, health, and climate benefits to transforming the energy system—including more than $800 billion in annual public health savings, and nearly $1.3 trillion in avoided climate damages by 2050. 

Clean, renewable energy contributes to reliability. 

In addition to dirty air and dirty water, the industry that made Wright wealthy also has a dirty secret: it’s unreliable. The recent failures of the gas system, including gas plants, under extreme weather conditions have led to rolling blackouts, with serious safety and health consequences for communities left without power during critical times of need. Looking closely at recent extreme winter weather events, a UCS analysis found that gas plants were disproportionately vulnerable to failure. By contrast, renewable energy sources can be more reliable during challenging weather conditions. 

Carbon pollution is pollution. 

Wright argues that rising CO2 levels are not dangerous. The EPA has found the current (or any increasing) mix of atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, poses a threat to human health. The EPA engaged in a public process that took more than two years and included exhaustive review of the scientific literature to reach this finding. And while Wright claims labelling CO2 as pollution is a “marketing” tactic, it was the U.S. Supreme Court, not the wind or solar industries, that forced the EPA to act on the basis of existing law, the Clean Air Act. 

Wind and solar are clean energy. 

While all energy sources have impacts, wind and solar are much cleaner than fossil fuels. Wright’s frequent, narrow focus on the use of fossil fuels in the manufacturing and construction of wind turbines and solar panels is highly misleading and doesn’t tell the whole story.  

The heat-trapping emissions from these activities are minor compared to the lifecycle emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. In fact, overall lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from generating electricity from methane gas and coal are 11-23 times higher than solar and 37-77 higher than wind, respectively, according to data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). And unlike fossil fuels, electricity generated by wind and solar does not use water or produce any emissions or wastes that can contaminate the air, land, or waterways. 

Defining the energy produced by wind, solar, and other renewable sources as “clean” is a factual description of what that energy does to our world when we use it, compared to burning dirty coal, oil, and methane. It is obvious why someone who has made a fortune in the business of dirty energy might not like that label, but if the dirty shoe fits . . .   

The Questions Senators Need to Ask. 

Again, the motivation to engage in disinformation comes when accurate information is threatening. For example, when people say, “this is not about the money,” you can be sure it is absolutely about the money. 

A Senate confirmation hearing should provide Senators and the public an accurate picture of the nominees’ views and fitness for public service. President-elect Trump has selected Chris Wright for the Department of Energy because he will double down on the production and use of the same old, dirty energy resources that have made him wealthy; wealth that Wright and other industry figures have used to fund the Trump campaign. (My colleagues have also shared insightful advice that should guide Senators’ approach in evaluating these nominees.) 

Rather than engaging in deceptive claims designed to turn facts on their heads, Wright should simply be honest about his views and let the Senate—and the public—decide whether he is the right person to set US energy policy for the next four years.  

Categories: Climate

Ask A Scientist: How Can Scientists Drive Change Through Climate Lawsuits? 

As the climate crisis deepens, so does the urgency to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for decades of deception. Governments representing more than a quarter of the US population have filed lawsuits against major corporations including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, seeking justice for the harm caused by their lies about the dangers of their products. And especially on the cusp of a new Presidential administration that has vowed to support the fossil fuel industry and nominated appointees with a blatant disregard for science, the courts will become an integral arena to advance climate justice—and a pivotal space for scientists of all disciplines to make an impact. 

These lawsuits hinge on the best available science to uncover the truth and inform the courts. UCS is already working with social scientists and economists, civil engineers and health practitioners who can bring extensive expertise to multi-faceted litigation. As the fossil fuel industry spares no expense to obscure these truths, the work of scientists who engage with climate litigation is increasingly vital. They bring clarity, evidence, and credibility to a high-stakes fight where lives—and the planet—are on the line. 

To help scientists of all disciplines who are thinking about getting engaged, but might not know where to start, I turned to Delta Merner, Lead Scientist for UCS’s Science Hub for Climate Litigation. Merner’s research and expertise has informed climate litigation across the globe, as she connects legal teams with technical experts and leads trainings for scientists working at the intersection of climate science and law.  

AAS: What would you say to scientists who feel they don’t have the expertise or understanding to participate in climate litigation?  

DM: In many ways, climate litigation isn’t actually that different from the work scientists are used to doing. At its core, we’re still asking robust questions, conducting thorough research to assess those questions, and drafting compelling documents to communicate our findings. The fundamental process remains the same—it’s just a different format and audience. 

In some ways, for example, my PhD defense did prepare me with skills that translate well to the courtroom. After all, you quickly learn to stay calm and back up your claims when you have to stand in a room full of brilliant, critical people ready to poke holes in your every word. 

In both cases, you’re making a claim, presenting evidence, and responding to questions or criticism. The key difference is the audience. Instead of speaking to other scientists, you’re addressing a legal community that operates with its own rules of argumentation, unique citation methods, and a distinct language for making claims. 

So, while the tools and processes are familiar, adapting to this new audience requires an additional layer of thoughtfulness. You’re not just presenting facts— you’re translating complex scientific evidence into a form that meets the legal system’s standards of argumentation, while upholding scientific rigor and independence. That intersection between science and law is what makes this work so fascinating and impactful.

AAS: What was that transition into the legal arena like for you? Who did you look to for guidance and to learn from?  

DM: My first time testifying in court was during my PhD program, and honestly, I had very little guidance. I didn’t fully understand how different it would be to communicate my research to a legal audience. I knew my research inside and out, and I thought that would be enough—but it quickly became clear that presenting in this context is a skill in itself. It requires not only expertise in your subject matter but also the ability to convey that knowledge in a way that resonates with the specific needs and expectations of the court. 

This realization pushed me to seek guidance and learn from others. There are experts who have been doing this work for years, and generally speaking, science has been presented in US courts for a long time. For me, working through the courts felt like an opportunity to apply my research to create real-world change, but to do that effectively, I needed to broaden my perspective. I’ve learned a great deal from science communicators, organizers, researchers, and litigators who understand how to bridge the gap between science and law. Each has contributed to shaping how I approach this work and helped me find my voice in the courtroom.  

Historically, however, it can be difficult to find spaces to meet and work with others in this field–that’s why UCS started the Science Hub for Climate Litigation. The Science Hub for Climate Litigation has developed a valuable community of peers where scientists, communicators, and legal experts can learn from each other—whether it’s gaining insights from those with courtroom experience or collaborating to refine how we present complex evidence to drive meaningful change. 

AAS: UCS scientists often provide their scientific expertise to help inform policies. You’ve said that informing legal cases is just as critical as informing the formation of policy. Can you talk a little more about that? 

DM: That’s a great question, and it’s one that gets to the heart of our work. At UCS, we see climate litigation, informed by science, as one of the most impactful tools we have to address climate change—and the evidence is clear that it’s working. The last IPCC report stated that climate-related litigation “has influenced the outcome and ambition of climate governance.” It also highlighted that “outside the formal climate policy processes, climate litigation is an important arena for various actors to confront and interact over how climate change should be governed.” In short, climate litigation is actively shaping climate action today. 

Scientists have a critical role to play in this space. We can conduct robust, timely, and litigation-relevant research. We can help inform the courts through amicus briefs or other legal interventions designed to provide judges with the evidence they need to make informed decisions. And we can even step into the courtroom as expert witnesses. But engaging in litigation isn’t necessarily intuitive or straightforward for most scientists. That’s where the Science Hub for Climate Litigation comes in.  

The Science Hub focuses on four key areas: catalyzing legally relevant scientific research, expanding the community of scientists and legal experts informing litigation, making robust science widely accessible, and connecting legal teams with experts. Together, these efforts create a pathway for scientists to bring their expertise into the legal arena and make a tangible impact on climate action. 

AAS: First and foremost, like many of our readers, you are a researcher. Can you tell us a little more about those existing gaps in current scientific research that, if addressed, could further support climate litigation? 

DM: As a researcher, I see significant opportunities for science to further inform climate litigation by addressing critical gaps. Our recent report on research areas for climate litigation highlights several key needs. For instance, attribution science remains a priority—establishing causal links between emissions, climate impacts, and specific events is essential for many cases. However, there’s a pressing need to expand this research to underrepresented regions, particularly in the Global South, where baseline data is often lacking. Developing new methods to suit these contexts can help ensure justice is accessible to all communities impacted by climate change. 

We also identified the connections between climate change and human health as another priority. Cases that focus on health impacts, such as those related to extreme heat or air quality, require more robust data, particularly for vulnerable populations like children, older adults, and pregnant people. Similarly, economic research that quantifies the costs of climate impacts and the benefits of mitigation is vital for informing remedies in legal cases. Addressing these issues demonstrates how expertise from diverse disciplines—whether in public health, economics, or social science—can play an important role to inform climate litigation. You don’t need to be a climate scientist to make a meaningful impact. 

Beyond these priorities, our work highlights strategic areas like disinformation and greenwashing, emissions accounting, and fair share analysis for corporate and national accountability. Each of these areas presents opportunities for science to fill evidence gaps that are critical to informing litigation.  

By addressing these gaps, scientists can play a role in informing the evolving landscape of climate litigation and ensure that courts have the best available science to inform their decisions. 

AAS: In a recent blog post, you mentioned the opportunities to expand the scope of climate litigation in 2025. Could you elaborate on the stakes of what’s on the docket this year? 

DM: This year’s climate litigation docket has high stakes, with cases that could set major precedents for how we address the climate crisis. On the international stage, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is working on an advisory opinion to clarify what responsibilities countries have under international law to combat climate change. (UCS actually helped a number of states in the Global South to prepare draft their written submissions.) While this opinion won’t be legally binding, it could influence future cases and push governments to take stronger climate action. Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is considering how climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, linking climate action to fundamental human rights. 

In the US, more than a quarter of people now live in places that are suing  major fossil fuel corporations for deceiving people about climate change and for the damage they knew their oil, gas, and coal products would cause. These cases aim to hold companies accountable for the disinformation that has blocked climate action and slowed the transition to clean energy. ExxonMobil and other major fossil fuel corporations have employed numerous procedural tactics to delay progress of these lawsuits (some of which have been ongoing for more than seven years), preventing them from being heard in courtrooms across the country. 

We’re also seeing more lawsuits following climate-related disasters, like the Maui wildfires and severe flooding in North Carolina. These cases often focus on holding governments or companies accountable for not doing enough to prepare for foreseeable climate risks, like stronger storms or longer droughts. They highlight the very real human and financial costs of climate inaction and aim to drive systemic change. 

This wave of litigation shows that courts are becoming a critical arena for climate action, especially as political systems struggle to keep up with the urgency of the crisis. By combining evidence from science, law, and lived experience, these cases have the power to bring about accountability and push for meaningful solutions. 

AAS: And I’ll close with this: it’s a new year, a fresh start, and folks are making resolutions. What is something concrete that you’re working on?  

DM: This year, I’m focusing on communicating the value and potential impact of scientists informing climate litigation. It’s crucial for scientists to understand that this work is about ensuring that courts have access to accurate, robust evidence to make informed decisions. Upholding the integrity of our research while making it actionable is essential to bridging the gap between science and justice. 

At the same time, I want to increase engagement among scientists to help them recognize the critical role they can play in legal processes. Whether it’s providing expert testimony, contributing to amicus briefs, or making their findings more accessible to legal teams, there are so many ways to contribute. By supporting scientists in these efforts, we can create a stronger connection between science and the legal system, and empower courts to drive meaningful change. 

→ Learn more and join the UCS Science Hub for Climate Litigation today 

Categories: Climate

Biden Trump-proofs $74bn in climate funding but $20bn remains vulnerable

The Guardian Climate Change - January 14, 2025 - 06:00

Allocation of funds from Inflation Reduction Act makes it harder for president-elect to halt green initiatives

The Biden administration has raced to allocate $74bn of funding for climate initiatives before Donald Trump’s inauguration, leaving $20bn vulnerable to potential rollback by the incoming president, new figures reveal.

As the inauguration of Trump looms, the outgoing administration has been accelerating its allocation of cash for climate change and clean energy programs before they are throttled by the incoming US president.

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate

The Floods This Time: In the Mediterranean, Climate Change Is Already Here

NYT Global Warming Climate Change - January 14, 2025 - 05:03
Short, heavy rainfall is typical of the Mediterranean, but nothing is typical about what has been happening there recently.
Categories: Climate

‘We are crying for rain’: Suriname’s villages go hungry as drought bites

The Guardian Climate Change - January 14, 2025 - 03:00

After the worst rains in decades, rivers are drying up and crops failing, leaving people in the interior without clean water or healthcare, and cutting transport links

John Adjako lets out a deep sigh when his thoughts turn to his income as a boatman. It has been dwindling for the past few months during the drought in the Upper Suriname region where he lives and where his boat is one of the dozens moored each day at the Atjoni jetty.

December generally sees a surge of local passengers and tourists heading to the interior of Suriname, a country on the north-east coast of South America, where the Amazon meets the Atlantic Ocean.

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate

Nobel prize winners call for urgent ‘moonshot’ effort to avert global hunger catastrophe

The Guardian Climate Change - January 14, 2025 - 01:01

More than 150 Nobel and World Food prize laureates sign open letter calling for immediate ramping up of food production

More than 150 Nobel and World Food prize laureates have signed an open letter calling for “moonshot” efforts to ramp up food production before an impending world hunger catastrophe.

The coalition of some of the world’s greatest living thinkers called for urgent action to prioritise research and technology to solve the “tragic mismatch of global food supply and demand”.

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate

LA fires forecast to be costliest blaze in US history with estimate of over $200bn in losses

The Guardian Climate Change - January 13, 2025 - 19:58

Fires have killed at least 24, displaced thousands, destroyed over 12,000 structures as winds predicted until Wednesday

Fire crews are trying to get the upper hand on blazes that are tearing through Los Angeles before expected high wind gusts threaten their progress. The fires, which may become the most expensive in US history, have killed at least 24 people, displaced thousands, destroyed more than 12,000 structures and have 100,000 people under evacuation orders.

Sustained winds of up to 40mph (64km/h) and gusts in the mountains reaching 65mph (105km/h) are predicted through Wednesday, forecasters said. Winds picked up on Monday and were expected to strengthen on Tuesday, fire behavior analyst Dennis Burns said.

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate

Dangerous winds expected to amplify California wildfires as death toll hits 24

The Guardian Climate Change - January 13, 2025 - 17:22

Warning of ‘particularly dangerous situation’ with gusts expected as LA fire chief says: ‘We are not in the clear yet’

Firefighters battling the disastrous wildfires around Los Angeles were prepared for a return of dangerous winds that could again stoke the flames as the death toll in the tragedy has hit at least 24.

Fierce gusts known as Santa Ana winds have been largely blamed for turning the wildfires into devastating infernos that leveled huge tranches of neighborhoods around America’s second-largest city, which has also been hit by drought.

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate

US House speaker supports conditional California aid; officials pre-deploy firefighters as LA braces for ‘explosive fire growth’ – live

The Guardian Climate Change - January 13, 2025 - 17:22

Mike Johnson criticizes California state and local officials; Gavin Newsom says ‘hundreds of firefighting assets are currently prepositioned across Southern California’

Weather forecasters are predicting that the dry season in Los Angeles is likely to get worse in the coming weeks and that the drought which intensified last week across southern California will continue to worsen into March.

Meteorologist Eric Holthaus has written for the Guardian and says the rain forecast for the next three weeks in Los Angeles means the city’s record-dry start to its rainy season will keep getting worse.

This year’s rainy season is running at just 2% of normal for Los Angeles, which has only seen 0.16in of rain so far.

Weather models increasingly indicate that southern California will receive no rain at all during the rest of January, and potentially no rain during the first week or two of February as well.

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate

Supreme Court Clears a Path for Lawsuits Against Oil Companies to Proceed

NYT Global Warming Climate Change - January 13, 2025 - 16:06
The high court declined to hear a challenge to a major case in which Honolulu is suing energy companies over climate change.
Categories: Climate

No One Should Be Scoring Political Points Over a Fire

NYT Global Warming Climate Change - January 13, 2025 - 12:31
It’s way too soon for ideological score settling.
Categories: Climate

Oil Tycoon Harold Hamm Throwing an Inauguration Day Party

NYT Global Warming Climate Change - January 13, 2025 - 12:26
Harold G. Hamm, the founder of the Oklahoma-based Continental Resources, and other oil and gas companies stand to profit from Donald Trump’s energy policies.
Categories: Climate

Are Smart Thermostats Worth the Money?

NYT Global Warming Climate Change - January 13, 2025 - 12:22
Here’s what to know about potential savings on your power bill, and the environmental benefits.
Categories: Climate

What is happening in Los Angeles is our future | Francine Prose

The Guardian Climate Change - January 13, 2025 - 11:00

The news from California is clear, but we don’t want to see it. It’s too confounding, big, complex. But we can sense the danger

When I send anxious texts to friends in Los Angeles – friends who have been evacuated or who are waiting to leave , friends escaping a fire zone, wondering if their life’s work has been destroyed, worrying about the smoke’s effect on an asthmatic child – I always begin with the same three words:are you OK?

But a continent away, watching photos and videos of a city I love being incinerated, overcome by waves of terror, grief and mourning, I have other questions.

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate

‘Have some guts’: Sarah Hanson-Young challenges Labor to keep its environmental promises

The Guardian Climate Change - January 13, 2025 - 09:00

Greens senator sees climate crisis and environment as the ‘elephant in the room’ for 2025 election

The Greens are demanding Labor put a moratorium on the destruction of koala habitat and overcome political opponents and mining interests to implement its full suite of promised environment protection laws, in an early attempt to position nature as a federal election issue.

“What we need is the government, the Labor party, to be tougher and to have some guts to stand up and stare them down,” says the party’s environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate

UK faces broccoli and cauliflower shortage this spring

The Guardian Climate Change - January 13, 2025 - 04:44

Growers blame weather challenges in UK and Europe, which Met Office says will become more frequent with climate breakdown

Broccoli, cauliflower and other brassicas may be in short supply this spring as the mild autumn and winter has caused the crops to come up early, growers have said.

Any shortages will prolong the so-called “hungry gap”, which runs from April to early June, when very few crops grown in the UK are ready to eat.

Continue reading...
Categories: Climate