Climate

The judges ruled that German civil law could be used to hold companies accountable for the worldwide effects of their emissions.

Tax expected to generate nearly $100m annually, to be used for projects such as replacing sand on eroding beaches

Hawaii’s governor signed legislation that boosts a tax imposed on hotel room and vacation rental stays in order to raise money to address the consequences of the climate crisis.

It’s the first time in a government in the US imposes such levy to help cope with a warming planet.

Continue reading...

Exclusive: André Corrêa do Lago says ‘answers have to come from the economy’ as climate policies trigger populist-fuelled backlash

The world is facing a new form of climate denial – not the dismissal of climate science, but a concerted attack on the idea that the economy can be reorganised to fight the crisis, the president of global climate talks has warned.

André Corrêa do Lago, the veteran Brazilian diplomat who will direct this year’s UN summit, Cop30, believes his biggest job will be to counter the attempt from some vested interests to prevent climate policies aimed at shifting the global economy to a low-carbon footing.

Continue reading...

Court rejects argument that man’s home is at risk from glacial flood but sets precedent that polluters may be held liable for costs

A German court has rejected a climate case brought by a Peruvian farmer against the German energy company RWE, but set a potentially important precedent on polluters’ liability for their carbon emissions.

The upper regional court in Hamm confirmed that companies could be held liable for climate damages in civil proceedings but rejected the argument by the farmer and mountain guide Saúl Luciano Lliuya that his home was at direct risk of being washed away by a glacial flood.

Continue reading...

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is among the foundational environmental protection laws in the United States, and it is under unprecedented attack from the Trump Administration.  

Scientific rigor, transparency, Environmental Justice, and deliberation are fundamental to good government and can only be achieved through a robust NEPA process. As the current administration moves to gut the law, at the behest of extractive industries seeking to maximize profits, Congress and the US public must come to its defense.  

A simple premise: productive harmony 

Despite rhetoric from the oil, gas, and mining industries, NEPA is not complicated. The original statute stands for two basic propositions:  

1. Before a federal agency funds or permits something with significant environmental impacts, it should consider alternatives, including no action at all; and  
2. Before the agency makes the final decision, it should invite input from the people who will have to live with the consequences.  

Section 101 of the statute states the aim of the law even more simply: “to create and maintain conditions under which [people] and nature can exist in productive harmony.”  

And yet, the idea that potential impacts on people in surrounding communities should be considered before any significant federal action is taken was novel when NEPA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970. Much of US history is marked by unbridled resource extraction and rampant pollution from industrial development, with little or no consideration of the consequences to our air, land, and water.  

And if the idea of environmental protection was new, the concepts of government transparency and public input were downright radical. NEPA stands for the proposition that even the most powerful federal agency should have to at least consider the views of average members of the US public before charging ahead.  

After complying with NEPA’s requirements, however, that agency can still charge right ahead. The statute dictates a process, not an outcome, and the federal government can decide not to abide by the most environmentally conscious alternative. 

As the Supreme Court explained in 1989, “NEPA merely prohibits uninformed–rather than unwise–agency action.” 

The NEPA process is intended to take place concurrently with all other aspects of planning and implementation of a project. If project proponents go back to the drawing board a few times, or experience funding delays, or run afoul of the Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act, that all takes place during the “NEPA process.”  

This parallel structure has been manipulated by NEPA critics, who are eager to use anecdotal evidence to erroneously blame NEPA for project delays of years or even decades. Most experts agree that, given the various exemptions adopted over the years, size of the federal regulatory docket, and federal agency’s organized strategies to evade the statute, the allegations that NEPA stifles progress are overblown.  

The state of play 

Watching NEPA implementation recently has been like watching tennis. The Obama Administration sought to expand NEPA consideration of greenhouse gas emissions, among other changes, but then the first Trump Administration sought to truncate application of the law. The Biden Administration reversed the Trump guidance, but then Congress narrowed the statute somewhat in the 2023. The Biden Administration then worked to implement the changes, along with some improvements to the regulations. Central to efforts to update NEPA by the Obama and Biden Administrations was the seemingly obvious idea that a process designed to assess environmental impacts should account for pollution that would worsen climate change.  

Most recently, under the guise of an “energy emergency,” the Trump Administration has sought to repeal existing NEPA regulations and guidance, leaving individual departments and agencies to develop their own requirements for complying with the statute. In March, UCS joined 250 organizations in a comment letter on this action. As the letter made clear, “NEPA’s foundational premise is that full governmental transparency must be coupled with robust public participation to ensure federal agencies fully inform the public, and that agencies, in turn, are fully informed by the public, of a proposed project’s social and environmental costs and benefits.” 

Secretary Burgum announced in April that the Interior Department would cap the review period for certain energy leasing applications, including those for oil, gas, coal, and uranium, at less than one month. Apparently, the first project to be fast-tracked will be the reopening of a uranium mine in Utah closed in 1984. Agriculture Secretary Rollins has announced similar plans to truncate NEPA review for federal timber sales. Uranium mining and clear-cutting national forests are exactly the kinds of activities that may provide short-term windfalls to private companies, while leaving local communities with devastating long-term impacts. Projects like these require more deliberation, not less.  

“Red tape” is a red herring  

One good way to watch tennis is to keep your eye on the ball. “Cutting red tape” or “streamlining” usually means cutting corners and cutting the public out. Deliberation and public participation are central to the NEPA process and any change to the statue or its implementation designed to “speed things up” often come at the expense of these fundamental goals. 

NEPA was considered progressive in 1970, but its authors could not have known just how visionary the law really was. There is no better planning tool for coordinating a federal response to the climate crisis, or redressing decades of environmental racism, than NEPA. The goal of productive harmony between people and nature still seems both worthy and remote, particularly as millions of people suffer through yet another climate-fueled Danger Season. 

The Trump Administration plan to destroy NEPA is dangerously wrong. Federal agencies need better funding, staffing, and training to engage in NEPA work more effectively; new short-cuts, time-limits, exemptions, or statutes of limitations are not in the public interest.  

All infrastructure and energy development in the US since 1970 has occurred pursuant to NEPA. The law is not a barrier to development; it is a shield against reckless and unjust federal action. The only entities who benefit from undermining NEPA are special interests who reap a short-term windfall when federal agencies leap before they look. The only reason to curtail NEPA would be to let those windfalls happen. 

This post was co-authored by Dr. Marc Alessi.

Here we are once again, on the cusp of the Atlantic hurricane season, which starts on June 1. That’s when we start regularly (maybe obsessively?) checking the National Hurricane Center (NHC) website for daily updates on the likelihood of tropical storm formation. This year, we’re bracing for what’s expected to be an active season made doubly dangerous by the Trump Administration’s cuts to agencies like the National Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—the parent agency of the National Weather Service (NWS) and the NHC.

On May  22, NOAA released its outlook, forecasting with 70% confidence an above-average hurricane season, with 13 to 19 named storms—6 to 10 of which could become hurricanes, with 3 to 5 of those being major (Category 3-5).

That was in line with Colorado State University’s 2025 hurricane season forecast, which called for another above-average season with 17 named storms, of which 7 are likely to become hurricanes—4 of them major. Usually the first forecast out, Colorado State also releases multiple updates throughout the season as well as a wrap-up analysis.

These forecasts may look less daunting than the ones for 2024, which was predicted to be a significantly above-average hurricane season, more active than 2025. Those forecasts were right: 2024 ended up as one of the costliest hurricane seasons on record, with Hurricanes Milton (a category 3 at landfall) and Helene (a category 4 at landfall) causing the most damage in the continental US. Hurricane Helene was also one of the deadliest hurricanes since 1950. While 2024 hopefully shouldn’t be as severe as the 2025 hurricane season, the fact remains that an above-average season is expected, and it only takes one severe landfalling hurricane for the costs and harms to people to be significant.

Why an above-average season?

There are several factors that guide hurricane forecasters when they make their seasonal outlooks, two of which are mainly responsible for this year’s expected above-average hurricane season:

1. Sea surface temperature (SST): this is really what the name says—the temperature of the water on the ocean surface. Currently, SSTs are above normal across the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and most of the Atlantic Ocean where hurricanes typically form. And there’s a clear climate change signal: according to Climate Central’s Climate Shift Index, these warm ocean temperatures are 30x more likely due to fossil fuel-caused climate change. Why does the temperature of the ocean surface matter for hurricanes? For hurricanes to form, SSTs must be at least 30 degrees C (86 degrees F). These warm waters act as fuel for hurricanes. If a tropical storm develops over warmer-than-usual waters, the tropical storm has more fuel to work with to strengthen into a hurricane. Therefore, warmer waters are a strong predictor of how many hurricanes we might see during hurricane season, which is why both forecasts stress this variable as one of their main reasons for an above-average season.
2. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO): Currently, we’re in a neutral phase of ENSO, meaning neither El Niño nor La Niña is occurring, and according to the May forecast from the Climate Prediction Center, this neutral phase is likely to continue through the hurricane season. This is another reason for an above-average season. ENSO is a natural 5-to-7-year oscillation, or cycle, of ocean temperature in the eastern Pacific Ocean. During a La Niña, the ocean temperatures are cooler in this region, and during an El Niño, they are warmer. The latter is linked to increased vertical wind shear (the change in wind speed with height) over the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, which breaks down tropical cyclone formation, leading to fewer hurricanes developing. La Niña does not have this characteristic, and because of this, La Niña years usually tend to have more hurricanes. So what’s happening this hurricane season? An El Niño, which would be a better scenario for fewer hurricane formations, is unlikely to develop; hence the above-average season.  

What else will we be following this season?

Last year was a hurricane season for the record books. Hurricane Beryl was the earliest Category 5 hurricane in Atlantic recorded history, and Hurricanes Milton and Helene both underwent periods of rapid intensification, defined as a strengthening of winds of at least 35 mph in a 24-hour period, thanks in large part to SSTs being 2°C warmer than usual. These rapid intensification rates experienced by Helene and Milton are part of a larger trend in the Atlantic Ocean: hurricanes have increasingly undergone periods of rapid intensification since 1982 as a result of warmer waters due to fossil-fuel caused climate change. When these warmer waters are near the shore, hurricanes can intensify quickly just before landfall, creating an added layer of danger and preparedness needs.

Luckily, there is a silver lining to this. In 2024, the NHC had an incredibly accurate year forecasting the worst the season had to offer. The NHC predicted that both Milton and Helene would undergo periods of rapid intensification well in advance, which provided ample warning time to residents in Florida where the storms eventually made landfall. In fact, Helene was predicted to undergo rapid intensification when it was just a tropical disturbance, not even a fully formed tropical storm!

And the forecast for Milton was even more impressive: the very first advisory issued by the NHC for Milton predicted it would make landfall in Florida only 12 miles away from its actual landing spot! That was an incredibly accurate forecast made days in advance. But our ability to forecast storms this accurately is threatened by the Trump administration actions to slash federal agencies.

Above-average concerns added to an above-average season

This year, we enter hurricane season with heightened risks because of the Trump administration’s actions against NOAA and FEMA that have already undermined preparedness and could severely harm disaster response. And this certainly raises concerns.

Forecasts and warnings are an essential part of hurricane awareness. The NHC has historically monitored the Atlantic in a variety of ways in order to identify possible tropical storm formation, evolution, and ultimately hurricane development and trajectory.

In addition, resources such as hurricane hunter airplanes are key to identifying what is going on inside a hurricane, getting information on speed, strength, and other data, which then allows the NHC to issue a better forecast. The NHC also has an incredible lineup of weather and hurricane models and resources that have been perfected over the years by NOAA research laboratories, the same ones that are facing cuts from the Trump administration. If cuts to NOAA (and the NHC) continue, they are likely to diminish forecast accuracy and confidence, and communities at risk of an approaching hurricane may lack the resources to properly prepare and respond.

We also know that preparedness is key during hurricane season. That includes planned emergency responses such as evacuation plans, shelter, supplies, rescue and recovery. In the past, communities could count on the federal government and FEMA to come through after a hurricane (or any other disaster) hit.

Our colleague Shana Udvardy has been tracking the Trump administration’s attacks on FEMA and the potential consequences to people of its downsizing through cuts to the agency’s staff, programs and mission. According to her, the proposed shift of the burden of disaster response from the federal government to state and local government will create significant risk and harm for communities in the path of and reeling from disasters. Instead of making cuts, she says, the administration should strengthen FEMA.

Trump administration’s actions raise risks of bad outcomes

Cuts to NOAA and FEMA hinder our country’s ability to properly and safely respond to hurricane threats and other disasters. With climate change leading to stronger and more destructive hurricanes with intensifying wind and rainfall, and a higher likelihood of hurricanes making landfall along certain areas of the US coast, we can only hope that, if a hurricane makes landfall, communities on the storm path will be prepared and receive the assistance they need to get back on their feet.

Congress must work to counteract the Trump administration actions, ensuring NOAA and the NHC are fully funded and staffed so that hurricane experts at the NHC continue issuing lifesaving forecasts. Congress must also ensure a fully funded and staffed FEMA is ready to respond to any hurricane landfall this season.

Regenerative agriculture has growth potential for the offsets market, but scientists question its green credentials

On a blustery spring day, Thomas Gent is walking through a field of winter wheat on his family’s farm, which straddles the Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire border. Some of the green shoots reach his knees, while the ground between the plants is covered with clover.

Sinking a spade into the soil, Gent grins as he points to the freshly dug clod of earth on the blade. “Look at the root structure,” he says. “It rained 20mm last night. The water has drained down because the soil structure is in the right format.”

Continue reading...

Data also shows small but ‘shocking’ likelihood of year 2C hotter than preindustrial era before 2030

There is an 80% chance that global temperatures will break at least one annual heat record in the next five years, raising the risk of extreme droughts, floods and forest fires, a new report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has shown.

For the first time, the data also indicated a small likelihood that before 2030, the world could experience a year that is 2C hotter than the preindustrial era, a possibility scientists described as “shocking”.

Continue reading...

Sebastião Salgado, a renowned photojournalist who died last week, spent decades capturing an Amazon that is fast disappearing.

ExxonMobil’s annual foray into climate action cosplay is out, and this year’s “Advancing Climate Solutions” report once again dresses up propaganda as science, ignores history, and defies common sense.  

This year’s review comes on the heels of a new report from UCS prominently featuring ExxonMobil titled Decades of Deceit. This collection of internal documents outlines how the fossil fuel industry knew about the harms of its products since the 1950s and carried out a highly deceptive public relations campaign to distract from the reality of climate change and delay climate action.  

Unsurprisingly, ExxonMobil’s latest attempt to dust over this history is more of the same and continues that legacy of deception and greenwashing, manipulating scientific understanding to maintain a veneer of climate action. It’s both rhetorically confident and decidedly noncommittal, full of statements pledging up to billions of dollars in investments to support the transition to net zero, declarations of its rebrand as a “molecule transformation company”, and no acknowledgment of its role in driving climate change in the first place.  

This is the third such report I’ve reviewed as part of my work at UCS. Last year, I explored how ExxonMobil’s graphs imparted an impression of scientific credibility to glossy yet meaningless graphs that again are a key feature.  But here, we’ll be exploring this report as a masterclass in paltering, where facts are presented deceptively, in this case without key information required to properly contextualize them.  

Who is this report for?  

Before we dive into the content of the report, let’s be clear: this report is targeting shareholders and investors. Both of these groups may feel the need to either market themselves as green, requiring cover to continue investing in ExxonMobil. Alternatively, this report could also be deployed as a tactic to appease those who aspire to walk in the footsteps of Engine No. 1, an activist investor which in 2021 led a successful proxy fight to claim three seats on ExxonMobil’s board.  

The report was published in the lead-up to ExxonMobil annual shareholders’ meeting—at which no climate-related shareholder proposals are on the agenda. Last year, the corporation took the extreme measure of filing suit against two investor groups that filed resolutions asking for deeper global warming emissions reductions, refusing to drop the suit even after the shareholders withdrew their proposal. 

Climate report says what?  

ExxonMobil’s report misrepresents conclusions from both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and International Energy Agency (IEA) by denying the importance of a fossil fuel phaseout to meet climate goals and instead focusing on carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the essential solution to meeting climate targets. While both institutions recognize a potential role for CCS in specific sectors, ExxonMobil’s framing ignores the broader consensus that rapid emissions reductions through proven solutions, such as transitioning to renewable energy, are the cornerstone of any credible climate strategy.  

The 2023 IPCC Synthesis Report presents multiple pathways to limit global warming, some of which include carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, all such pathways also require steep and immediate emission reductions. In this context, abatement refers to capturing at least 90 percent of emissions from a given source, a performance level that current CCS deployment has not consistently achieved. Notably, ExxonMobil supports its claims about CCS cost-effectiveness by citing outdated findings from a 2014 IPCC report, ignoring more recent assessments and real-world performance data.  

The current limitations of CCS do not excuse inaction; rather, they underscore the urgent need for proven mitigation strategies and strong regulatory standards that do not rely on unproven or future technologies. 

Carbon Capture and Storage 

Let’s dig into carbon capture and storage (CCS), the largest portion of ExxonMobil’s low carbon solutions chapter, but one presented without some very important context.  

Carbon capture was not developed as a climate mitigation strategy, although the fossil fuel industry has sought to rebrand it as such, touting applications to fossil fuel infrastructure and hard-to-abate sectors. In reality, and notably absent from the report is the fact that the majority of captured carbon is and has been used to extract more oil. This process, called enhanced oil recovery, has been happening since the 1970s.  

The first examples of carbon capture come from fossil gas processing. Practically, CO2 needs to be separated from extracted raw gas to produce fossil gas, which is primarily methane.  This would be required regardless of the fate of the separated CO2. That CO2 can be sold for EOR or storage instead of vented, creating an additional revenue stream from gas processing. However, even today, the majority of CO2 used in EOR comes from natural reservoirs of CO2. 

ExxonMobil’s claims in this report also overstate the efficacy of carbon capture, particularly for power plants. A 2020 peer-reviewed study found that roughly 90% of proposed projects in the power sector were never built, and many that became operational missed their capture targets by between 15 and 50%.   

In addition, little evidence exists that this technology can be scaled in time or at the level needed to deliver the deep emissions cuts required between now and 2030—especially in comparison to more mature, cost-effective solutions. Yet, this crucial context is absent from ExxonMobil’s report, which presents CCS as a silver bullet rather than one potential tool within a broader, science-based climate strategy. 

Who needs history anyway?  

One of the most frustrating parts of reading this report is the complete disregard of how we got to this place. It reads as if climate change is just a thing that happened without influence from industry, government, or the cooperation between both. What Decades of Deceit along with the 2015 UCS report, the Climate Deception Dossiers, make clear, is that arriving at this point, 422 ppm (parts per million) CO2  and rising, did not just happen but rather was the result of a long-running fossil fuel industry campaign to muddy the science of climate change, attack experts, and manipulate public discourse. To ignore this context is the biggest ruse of all.  

Threat of liability is growing 

This report was released into a domestic political situation that is hostile to the energy transition, and one where liabilities and litigation associated with ExxonMobil’s role in driving climate change continue to grow. The Trump administration has very publicly allied itself with not only fossil fuel industry and interests, but integrated industry into the administration itself (see Chris Wright, or Rex Tillerson). On top of that, we’ve seen the administration bludgeon not only research focused on climate change but mere mentions of it across federal websites and programs.  This deep integration of industry and government increases the risk of an industry-wide liability waiver, one that could provide immunity to an industry that knowingly caused damage to our planet and communities, while profiting handsomely.  

Meanwhile, litigation targeting the deceptive conduct of the fossil fuel industry and legislation seeking accountability marches ahead despite attempts by the administration to stymie these efforts. And the science connecting emissions traced to these companies to devastating climate impacts continues to strengthen, as does our ability to show the role of climate change in a growing number of extreme events.  

Shareholders must demand an end to disinformation and greenwashing 

ExxonMobil’s 2025 report is not a roadmap for climate action—it’s a distraction. While ExxonMobil’s strategy may have changed, this report illustrates that the corporation’s output of (highly produced) disinformation continues. From misrepresenting the conclusions of the IPCC to overstating the potential of its technologies, ExxonMobil continues to put significant effort and resources into creating the illusion that the company cares about climate change.  

That’s why the Union of Concerned Scientists is urging shareholders and financiers to demand that ExxonMobil cease disinformation and greenwashing on climate science, public policy, and corporate actions.   

Band of water where marine life can survive has reduced in more than a fifth of global ocean between 2003 and 2022

Great swathes of the planet’s oceans have become darker in the past two decades, according to researchers who fear the trend will have a severe impact on marine life around the world.

Satellite data and numerical modelling revealed that more than a fifth of the global ocean darkened between 2003 and 2022, reducing the band of water that life reliant on sunlight and moonlight can thrive in.

Continue reading...

Meg O’Neill tells energy industry conference that individual consumers’ role in driving emissions is ‘missing’ in conversations about fossil fuels

• Australia news live: latest politics updates

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

The boss of Australian gas giant Woodside, Meg O’Neill, has attacked young people who take an ideological stand against fossil fuels, suggesting they are hypocrites for ordering cheap online consumer goods “without any sort of recognition of the energy and carbon impact of their actions”.

O’Neill was speaking during the gas industry’s annual conference in Brisbane, where the resources minister, Madeleine King, said the government was working to enhance exploration for gas while improving the approvals process for companies.

Get Guardian Australia environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as an email

Continue reading...

For decades, California has been able to adopt its own emissions regulations, effectively setting the bar for carmakers nationally. And for just as long, Republicans have resented the state’s outsize influence.

Environment minister Murray Watt is due to make a decision on whether to extend the controversial North West Shelf development in coming days

• Want to get this in your inbox when it publishes? Sign up for the Clear Air Australia newsletter here

• Reliable energy or ‘carbon bomb’? What’s at stake in the battle over Australia’s North West Shelf

Unless something remarkable – the federal court, perhaps – intervenes, the Albanese government will this week make a decision that could have ramifications for greenhouse gas emissions and Indigenous heritage that last for decades – or longer. It relates to the future of the North West Shelf, one of the world’s largest liquified natural gas (LNG) projects.

Most discussion about it assumes that it is a done deal – that the environment minister, Murray Watt, will give the green light to an application by Woodside Energy to extend the life of the gas export processing facility on the Burrup peninsula in Western Australia’s Pilbara region.

Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter

Continue reading...

Exclusive: Disaster Relief Australia pushes for funding deal as it positions itself as alternative to ADF in aftermath of floods, fires and cyclones

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

The veteran-led organisation on the frontline of disaster recovery wants federal government support to help establish a 10,000-strong volunteer army.

Disaster Relief Australia (DRA) is pushing for a new funding deal to secure its future and grow its force, as it positions itself as an alternative to the Australian defence force in the aftermath of major floods, fires and cyclones.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

Continue reading...

Warmer waters near Devon and Cornwall are creating a cephalopod-based ‘financial bonus’ for the fishing industry

Octopuses have long captivated humans with their alien-like appearance and bizarre anatomy.

This spring, the cephalopods have been baffling, delighting and enraging fishers in English waters as an unprecedented marine heatwave has led to a surge in their numbers.

Continue reading...

Brutal heat and drought expected to blanket country from Nevada to Florida as experts worry climate cuts will burn

This year’s summer months promise to be among the hottest on record across the United States, continuing a worsening trend of extreme weather, and amid concern over the impacts of Trump administration cuts to key agencies.

The extreme heat could be widespread and unrelenting: only far northern Alaska may escape unusually warm temperatures from June through August, according to the latest seasonal forecast from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa).

Continue reading...

Battery-operated vehicles were a mainstay more than a hundred years ago, but only a few still exist — one happens to be in Jay Leno’s garage.

Monday comments to Sky News raise doubts about looming cooperation agreement with the Liberals

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, says his party’s support for a policy of net zero emissions by 2050 is up for review, contradicting his deputy and raising doubts about the looming cooperation agreement with the Liberals.

After days of turmoil within the Coalition, Littleproud told Sky News he was relaxed about speculation his leadership could come under challenge from former leader Michael McCormack, denying there was division within the Nationals.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

Continue reading...

Stark warnings about threatened coastal areas should prompt fresh efforts to protect those most at risk

In his classic study of the 17th-century Dutch golden age, The Embarrassment of Riches, the art historian Simon Schama showed how the biblical story of Noah’s ark resonated in a culture where catastrophic floods were an ever-present threat. The history of the Netherlands includes multiple instances of storms breaching dikes, leading to disastrous losses of life and land. These traumatic episodes were reflected in the country’s art and literature, as well as its engineering.

In countries where floods are less of a danger, memories tend to be more localised: a mark on a wall showing how high waters rose when a town’s river flooded; a seaside garden such as the one in Felixstowe, Suffolk, to commemorate the night in 1953 when 41 people lost their lives there.

Continue reading...