Climate

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...

British arm of Heartland, which has taken oil and Republican funding, to be led by ex-Ukip head Lois Perry

Climate science deniers are lining up a political offensive in Britain after a US lobby group opened a UK branch which is already working with Nigel Farage.

The Reform UK leader was the guest of honour at the launch of Heartland UK/Europe, which is to be headed by a former leader of Ukip and climate denier.

Continue reading...

We are raiding the Guardian Long Read archives to bring you some classic pieces from years past, with new introductions from the authors.

This week, from 2022: Despite the rise of headline-grabbing megafires, fewer fires are burning worldwide now than at any time since antiquity. But this isn’t good news – in banishing fire from sight, we have made its dangers stranger and less predictable. By Daniel Immerwahr

Continue reading...

State regulators said the measures would probably have been rejected by the Trump administration and that they would focus on homegrown legal strategies instead.

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.

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

• California wildfires: live updates

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...

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.

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...

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.  

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 

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...

Short, heavy rainfall is typical of the Mediterranean, but nothing is typical about what has been happening there recently.