Feed aggregator

Nasa cuts contract that convened USGCRP, which released assessments impacting environmental decision-making

The White House is ending funding for the body that produces the federal government’s pre-eminent climate report, which summarizes the impacts of rising global temperatures on the United States.

Every four years, the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is required by Congress to release a new national climate assessment to ensure leaders understand the drivers of – and threats posed by – global warming. It is the most comprehensive, far-reaching and up-to-date analysis of the climate crisis, playing a key role in local and national decision making about agriculture, energy production, and land and water use.

Continue reading...

The cuts to a Princeton University program come as the Trump administration has been reviewing an array of research grants related to global warming.

President orders justice department to stop enforcement of critical policies holding fossil fuel companies accountable

Donald Trump is taking aim and city- and state-led fossil fuel accountability efforts, which have been hailed as a last source of hope for the climate amid the president’s ferociously anti-environment agenda.

In a Tuesday executive order, Trump instructed the Department of Justice to “stop the enforcement” of state climate laws, which his administration has suggested are unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable.

Continue reading...

In a blitz of destructive actions announced by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin last month, he specifically called for a reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. A formal proposal for reconsideration of the Finding (and all the agency regulations and actions that depend on it) is expected this month. The science underpinning the Endangerment Finding is airtight, but that won’t stop the Trump administration from setting up a rigged process to try to undo it and give a blank check to polluters. The Union of Concerned Scientists will fight back to defend climate science and protect public health safeguards.

In an earlier post, I laid out some of the history and context for the 2009 science-backed Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. These findings followed from the landmark 2007 Mass v. EPA Supreme Court ruling which held that greenhouse gas emissions are unambiguously air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. Together, these establish the clear basis for EPA’s authority and responsibility to set pollutions limits for heat-trapping emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources of these pollutants, under the Clean Air Act.   

Attacks on the Endangerment Finding and EPA’s Clean Air Act authority from industry interests are nothing new. Importantly, courts have repeatedly upheld both, including in a resounding 2012 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals–D.C. Circuit in Citizens for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. But those who have long sought to overturn or weaken regulations to limit heat-trapping emissions now have Administrator Zeldin in their corner. And he has shown himself to be an unbridled purveyor of disinformation and proponent of harmful attacks on bedrock public health protections, as my colleague Julie McNamara highlights.

The details of what will be included in the reconsideration proposal are unclear at this point. But we do know some of the trumped-up lines of attack the Zeldin EPA could advance to try to invalidate these Findings because many of these tired arguments are outlined in EPA’s reconsideration announcement.

Here are the facts:

Fact #1: The science backing the Endangerment Finding is beyond dispute

Every major scientific society endorses the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change driven by GHG emissions. The Fifth National Climate Assessment and the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report are two major recent authoritative summaries of peer-reviewed climate science, which show that the science on climate change has only become more dire and compelling since 2009.

The impacts of climate change on human health are also starkly clear and backed by overwhelming evidence. Here’s the main finding from the NCA5 chapter on public health, for instance:

Climate change is harming physical, mental, spiritual, and community health through the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme events, higher incidences of infectious and vector-borne diseases, and declines in food and water security. These impacts worsen social inequities. Emissions reductions, effective adaptation measures, and climate-resilient health systems can protect human health and improve health equity.

As just one example, climate change is contributing to worsening extreme heat which exerts a punishing toll on people’s health, including that of outdoor workers. Heat is already the leading cause of extreme weather-related deaths in the United States and studies show that heat-related mortality is on the rise.

Looking around the nation, with communities reeling from extreme heatwaves, intensified hurricanes, catastrophic wildfires and record flooding, climate impacts are the lived reality of all too many people. To deny that or obfuscate about the underlying causes is not only disingenuous, but actively harmful and outright cruel.

Fact #2: The law requires an independent scientific determination of endangerment, unhindered by cost considerations

A Finding of Endangerment under the Clean Air Act is specifically focused on a threshold scientific determination of whether the pollutant under consideration harms public health or welfare. Costs to industry of meeting any subsequent regulations are not relevant per the statute.

The original Endangerment Finding was reached in the context of the vehicle emissions, per section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, partially excerpted below:  

The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

In its 2012 decision, the DC Circuit was also clear is noting that “By employing the verb “shall,” Congress vested a non-discretionary duty in EPA.” That duty is not circumscribed by cost considerations.

Of course, the impacts of climate change are themselves incredibly costly and those costs are mounting as heat-trapping emissions rise. Unsurprisingly, the social cost of greenhouse gases, a science-based estimate of those costs, is another metric that the Trump EPA is seeking to undermine in yet another blatant attempt to put a thumb on the scale in favor of polluting industries.

Fact #3: EPA used well-established methodologies in its assessment of six GHGs

As noted in the 2009 endangerment finding, the EPA defined the pollutant contributing to climate change as “the aggregate group of the well-mixed greenhouse gases” with similar attributes. The attributes include that they are sufficiently long-lived, directly emitted, contribute to climate warming and are a focus of science and policy.

The EPA used a very well-established scientific methodology to combine emissions of GHGs on the basis of their heat-trapping potential, measured in CO2 equivalents. In the case of passenger cars, light- and heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles—the transportation sources EPA considered for the original endangerment finding—they emitted four key greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons.

False, glib claims in the reconsideration announcement baselessly accuse the 2009 Endangerment Finding of making “creative leaps” and “mysterious” choices. There is nothing mysterious about the heat-trapping attributes of greenhouse gases, nor their impact on public health. It’s called science. Once again, relying on the mountain of evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature would make that readily apparent.

Fact #4: EPA has the responsibility and authority to regulate major sources of GHGs

The Cause or Contribute Finding—which specifically established that greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles contribute to the pollution that harms public health—may   also come under attack. This finding has been extended to other major sources of GHGs, including power plants and oil and gas operations. However, the Trump administration could attempt to use accounting tricks to avoid regulating emissions—as it has tried before.

In its first term, the administration attempted multiple underhanded maneuvers along these lines, including in the context of methane and VOC regulations in the oil and gas sector . For these regulations, the administration split up segments of the source category, designated them as separate source categories, used that manipulation to claim inability to regulate certain segments, and asserted that methane emissions from the remaining segments were too small and regulating them would not provide additional benefits, so those too could not be regulated. Separately, in the final days of the administration, EPA released an absurd framework attempting to set thresholds for determining “significance,” trialed in the context of power plants.

This irrational approach could be used to artificially segment components of power plants or the power system, for example, and then claim no regulations are required. This kind of rigged math wouldn’t fool a kindergarten child but there’s no telling where this administration might go in its desperate attempt to undo or weaken regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Zeldin’s relentless subversion of EPA’s mission

Under Administrator Zeldin, EPA’s mission to protect public health and the environment has been completely subverted. His shocking rhetoric lays bare how far he will go to protect polluters at the expense of the public. Here he is, for instance, crowing about going after 31+ EPA regulations and guidance, as well as the enforcement of pollution standards meant to protect all of us:

“Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen. We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion…”

EPA even set up an email address for polluters to send an email to get a presidential exemption from complying with regulations on toxic pollution, such as mercury emissions, regulated under the Clean Air Act!

Zeldin is fervently committed to dismantling public health protections and rolling back enforcement of existing laws passed by Congress. Going after the Endangerment Finding is an integral part of this all-out assault because, in the Trump administration’s harmful calculation, revoking the Finding is a potential means to rolling back all the regulations that depend on it.  

Ironically, some utilities and oil and gas companies have spoken out in favor of keeping the Finding intact, as they fear a greater risk of climate damages lawsuits in the absence of EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Of course, this just exposes that they know their products are causing damage. What they seek is the weakest possible exercise of EPA authority so they can continue to reap profits while evading accountability for those harms.

We can fight back with science

But none of this is a foregone conclusion. The legal and scientific basis for the Endangerment Finding is incredibly strong. The false claims Zeldin and other opponents have trotted out are full of bombast but weak on substance.

The science on climate change is so indisputably well-established, that it’s hard to see how any court would uphold a challenge to it. That’s not to say Zeldin won’t try to find a cabal of fringe “scientists” to try to attack it, but they’re unlikely to succeed on the merits.

Public comments on the proposal to reconsider the Endangerment Finding can help set the record straight on facts. And if the Zeldin EPA ignores them and finalizes a sham Finding or revokes the Finding with a faulty rationale, that will be challenged in court.

UCS will be closely following the details of EPA’s proposal to reconsider the Endangerment Finding when it is released. And we will let you know how you can add your voice to bolster this crucial science-based Finding, and the public health protections that flow from it. So, stay tuned!

Guardian Australia is highlighting the plight of our endangered native species during an election campaign that is ignoring broken environment laws and rapidly declining ecosystems

• Explore the series – Last chance: the extinction crisis being ignored this election
• Get Guardian Australia environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as an email
• Election 2025 live updates: Australia federal election campaign

Australia’s most skilled aerial mammal, the yellow-bellied glider, is on an “inexorable slide” to extinction as global heating creates more extreme bushfires that are robbing the species of the food and tree hollows it relies on to survive.

Thanks to large parachutes of skin stretching from their wrists to their ankles, yellow-bellied gliders can travel up to 140 metres in a single jump, the furthest of any Australian mammal, including the larger and better known endangered greater glider.

Continue reading...

In Washington, where salmon is a multibillion dollar industry, government staff terminations and budget freezes may put salmon production at risk.

Amazon, Google and Microsoft are building datacentres in water-scarce parts of five continents

Amazon, Microsoft and Google are operating datacentres that use vast amounts of water in some of the world’s driest areas and are building many more, an investigation by SourceMaterial and the Guardian has found.

With Donald Trump pledging to support them, the three technology giants are planning hundreds of datacentres in the US and across the globe, with a potentially huge impact on populations already living with water scarcity.

Continue reading...

Last month, I was invited to speak at a press conference alongside Wisconsinites from across the state for the launch of the Climate Accountability Act. At just sixty words, it’s a simple but powerful bill with the potential to make our communities healthier, advance racial equity, and drive our state’s economy forward: 

In the 2025-26 legislative session, the legislature shall pass legislation creating a viable plan to reduce carbon emissions in this state by 52 percent by 2030 and creating a viable plan for achieving carbon neutral emissions in this state by 2050. Any plan enacted under this subsection shall maximize the impact of the plan on improving economic and racial equity.  

The bill, introduced by State Representative Supreme Moore Omokunde and State Senator Chris Larson, creates an enforceable timeline with specific objectives, allowing flexibility for discussions of the various technology and policy approaches to come later. With nearly 20 legislative cosponsors and a broad coalition of partners—including the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)—signed on in support, Wisconsin has the unique chance to prove that states can, and should, take the lead in preparing communities for a more resilient future. 

From technical details to personal stakes 

As a Senior Energy Analyst with UCS, my work typically involves diving deep into the details of specific pieces of regulation and legislation in Wisconsin and surrounding states: working on comments about archaic electric metering requirements in Wisconsin, writing testimony about interconnection rules in Michigan, or modeling the role of energy storage in Illinois’ clean energy future. 

So, when I first heard of the Climate Accountability Act—at a mere two sentences—I could have brushed it off as too high-level. Call me when we get to the nitty gritty! But in reality, as I pointed out in my remarks at the press conference launch, I have a huge stake in Wisconsin’s climate—this state is my home. 

I came to Madison ten years ago to pursue a master’s in electrical engineering. Eventually, I met my wife, bought a home, and welcomed a son into the world who is now three years old. Madison is our home. That’s why I believe the Climate Accountability Act is a critical step for Wisconsin, especially given all the ways the federal government is trying to move us backward  on addressing climate change.

The cost of inaction 

In my own comments, I highlighted some of the ways that the lack of a climate plan affects Wisconsinites, drawing on my colleagues’ research. I highlighted the UCS analysis of the negative health and economic impacts of new fossil gas plants that We Energies is proposing in Oak Creek and Paris, WI.  

My colleagues recently led an analysis showing that pollution from these proposed plants could result in nearly $6 billion of health and economic costs over their thirty year lifespan. That’s a big, scary number—but it translates to an even scarier reality: nearly 400 premature mortalities, 300 ER visits, and 900 new cases of asthma. 

Since the press conference, our Wisconsin coalition partners RMI released additional analysis about the proposed Oak Creek plant finding that it will cost ratepayers more than $1.25 billion in higher energy costs compared to cleaner alternatives. 

To underscore the negative impacts of fossil fuels on our grid, I also pointed to key research around resilience. In a study we completed last year, we found that during five major power outages around the U.S., gas plants were more likely to fail while resources like wind and solar helped keep the lights on. 

While the Climate Accountability Act doesn’t directly address the proposed plants, the setting in which the utility proposed them is important to understand. Despite being one of the first states to enact a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring 10% of the state’s energy to come from renewables, the requirement expired in 2015 with no meaningful updates since. And unlike most of our neighbors in the Midwest, Wisconsin is also unique in lacking a requirement for a detailed, public, forward-looking planning process known as integrated resource planning. 

Within this context, Wisconsin utilities are unique in their dogged pursuit of new gas capacity—EIA data indicates that natural gas made up only 7% of U.S. planned capacity additions in 2025, with the bulk of these new plants planned for states without a current clean energy standard (the proposed Wisconsin plants won’t show up in the EIA data unless they are approved by the state). With a robust climate plan, Wisconsin utilities would have to look beyond their legacy preference for fossil fuels and consider cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternatives.  

Climate change threatens Wisconsin’s future 

While I focused on the energy sector in my comments, the impacts of climate change—and the importance of the climate accountability act—are far-reaching for Wisconsin and other Midwest states. 

Our 2019 Killer Heat report found that without action on climate change, the number of days each year with a heat index over 100°F will jump 783%, from six to 53 in the Midwest. The impact will be felt most acutely by outdoor workers and vulnerable populations including children, the elderly, and those who are pregnant. The report also highlights how centuries of social and economic discrimination have increased the exposure of BIPOC communities and individuals to the risks of heat-related illnesses and injuries. 

In 2020, we highlighted research finding that the combined effects of rising temperatures and increased CO2 concentrations lead to reduced yields from corn and soybean crops in the Midwest, harming local economies. 

That’s just a handful of examples focused on the Midwest—at a higher level we know that climate change will also make winter storms worse, increase the risk of wildfires, and lead to more floods. 

And, as the sponsors of the Climate Accountability Act recognized with the inclusion of the critical second sentence, these impacts will most acutely affect environmental justice communities and others who have been historically marginalized. Any plan addressing climate change in Wisconsin must focus on addressing these historic harms. 

Source: Matt Brusky/Citizen Action “The fierce urgency of now” 

In his opening remarks at the press conference, the bill’s sponsor in the Assembly, Representative Supreme Moore-Omokunde, quoted the words of Martin Luther King Jr while reflecting on “the fierce urgency of now.”  I’ll close with his call to action: 

“We cannot continue to burn fossil fuels with no plans to seek alternatives that are best for urban and rural Wisconsinites. We must develop a plan now that centers racial and class equality, and gets us on a path to net zero.”

Click here to find out more about the bill and how you can support it. 

To help the struggling coal industry, President Trump used his executive authority to try to keep aging plants alive and burn more coal for electricity.

A new project by the Climate desk aims to recognize local climate and environmental solutions in all 50 states.

Who would be a young person? Not me!

• Sign up here to get an email whenever First Dog cartoons are published
• Get all your needs met at the First Dog shop if what you need is First Dog merchandise and prints

Continue reading...

The moves include loosening environmental rules, but it is unclear how much they can help reverse the sharp decline in coal power over the last two decades.

Surangel Whipps Jr says he would be ‘deeply disappointed’ if attempt were abandoned under Coalition

• Election 2025 live updates: Australia federal election campaign
• Get our afternoon election email, free app or daily news podcast

The president of Palau has strongly backed an Australian bid to host a UN climate conference on behalf of the Pacific, arguing that it would boost regional solidarity and clean energy investment and he would be “deeply disappointed” if the attempt were abandoned under the Coalition.

Speaking in Sydney, Surangel Whipps Jr stressed he did not want to offer a view on the Australian election but said leaders should heed the results of a Lowy Institute survey that suggested 70% of the population supported Labor’s proposal for the country hosting the Cop31 climate summit late next year.

Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter

Continue reading...

While the Democratic Republic of Congo reels from a new rebel offensive in the east, its capital in the west, Kinshasa, grapples with deadly floods.

President Trump’s tariff polices have sent oil prices falling, which may push energy companies to reconsider their plans to drill.

With rising temperatures, the atmosphere can hold more moisture, meaning precipitation has a tendency to fall at more extreme levels.

¡Feliz Semana del Agua!

¿Has visto alguna vez la Sierra Nevada de California desde el Valle de San Joaquín a principios de primavera en un día despejado? Cuando la Sierra tiene nieve y la calidad del aire nos permite verla desde aquí, esa vista no tiene igual.

Cada año en esta época, cuando miro la Sierra desde el Valle, sé que si veo poca nieve será un año seco. Cuando hay bastante nieve como ahora, sé que habrá menos dificultades con el suministro de agua durante el verano, pero puede haber inundaciones. Las inundaciones pueden ser causadas por lluvia sobre nieve y por altas temperaturas primaverales que derriten la nieve más rápido y antes de lo habitual. El cambio climático está provocando un deshielo más temprano y rápido.

Para nosotros, los apasionados del agua, esta vista es más que un hermoso paisaje. El manto de nieve es nuestra reserva de agua principal en California después del agua subterránea. Esta es una foto de la parte sur de la Sierra Nevada en 2023 vista desde el condado de Tulare. Foto por Angel S. Fernandez-Bou.

El estudio de niveles de nieve de la semana pasada confirmó lo que vemos en las montañas. El Departamento de Recursos Hídricos de California informó que el manto de nieve del estado midió el 96% del promedio en su punto máximo el 1 de abril. Hay matices, ya que el norte recibió el 120% y el sur solo el 84%. Podemos decir que estas son noticias relativamente buenas, pero también debemos recordar que los últimos tres años de manto de nieve promedio fueron seguidos de una severa sequía desde 2020 hasta 2022, el período de tres años más seco registrado en California.

Estos extremos climáticos y los cambios meteorológicos bruscos que experimentamos aquí son cada vez más frecuentes con el cambio climático, y es por eso que necesitamos planificar tanto para las inundaciones como para el próximo período seco que podría estar a la vuelta de la esquina.

Manto de nieve de la Sierra Nevada (norte, centro y sur) presentado como porcentaje de nieve comparado con el promedio histórico el 1 de abril. Mientras que el norte tiene más que el promedio histórico, el sur tiene menos. A escala estatal, el manto de nieve es aproximadamente el promedio histórico, pero habrá más agua en el norte y menos en el sur que el promedio.

En esta Semana del Agua 2025 tenemos que recapacitar sobre cómo prepararnos para los extremos climáticos modernizando nuestra gestión del agua. En años anteriores, el deshielo rápido ha provocado inundaciones y preocupaciones sobre la integridad estructural de algunas presas. Por ejemplo, en 2017, casi 200,000 residentes tuvieron que ser evacuados aguas abajo de Oroville debido a la probabilidad de un colapso después de un evento de lluvia sobre nieve.

Daño en el aliviadero de Oroville en 2017. Fuente: DWR

Por eso es vital que el estado esté trabajando con la comunidad científica en una nueva estrategia de gestión para reducir el riesgo de inundaciones para las comunidades río abajo y beneficiar los suministros de agua durante los períodos secos. Esta estrategia se llama FIRO, por sus siglas en ingles que significa “operaciones de embalses informadas por pronósticos meteorológicos”, y es un nuevo enfoque que puede ayudarnos a manejar de manera más flexible los extremos del agua.

Numerosas presas en California están diseñadas con un doble propósito: disponer de capacidad para capturar aguas de crecida y prevenir inundaciones, mientras simultáneamente funcionan como reservorios para el almacenamiento hídrico. Tradicionalmente, sin FIRO, estas presas se operan siguiendo normas rígidas basadas en el calendario, que determinan el volumen de agua que debe mantenerse en el embalse según la época del año.

Lo que FIRO aporta es permitir a los gestores de presas utilizar pronósticos meteorológicos para tomar decisiones más inteligentes sobre los niveles de agua. Pueden liberar agua preventivamente antes de tormentas significativas para crear capacidad adicional, o conservarla cuando los pronósticos no indican riesgos inminentes de precipitación. Esta aproximación flexible optimiza la gestión hídrica en ambos frentes: minimiza los riesgos de inundación y maximiza la disponibilidad del recurso.

En esencia, FIRO posibilita que los operadores conserven más agua en los embalses para utilizaciones futuras. Es decir, FIRO elimina ese “miedo a perderse oportunidades” (FOMO) respecto al agua que podría haberse almacenado si se contara con mejores herramientas de predicción.

FIRO: de California al mundo

Érase una vez (y persiste aún) una megasequía en California que alcanzó su punto crítico durante el período de severa escasez hídrica entre 2012 y 2016. Los entusiastas del agua de California tal vez sepan que esta sequía fue el catalizador que impulsó la Ley de Gestión Sostenible del Agua Subterránea (SGMA), la cual a su vez evidenció la necesidad de reusar estratégicamente cerca de un millón de acres de tierras agrícolas irrigadas en el estado. En aquel momento, los operadores de embalses observaban con preocupación cómo se liberaba agua de valor incalculable desde las presas como medida preventiva contra inundaciones, incluso cuando no existían pronósticos de lluvia ni acumulación de nieve por derretir. Esta situación exigía una solución.

El proyecto pionero de FIRO se implementó en el Lago Mendocino, en la cuenca del Río Ruso al norte de California. Allí convergió un equipo multidisciplinario de científicos, gestores hídricos e ingenieros que colaboraron con el Cuerpo de Ingenieros del Ejército, la Administración Nacional Oceánica y Atmosférica (NOAA), la Institución Scripps de Oceanografía y el Departamento de Recursos Hídricos de California para desarrollar una solución innovadora. El elemento decisivo fueron los avances en pronósticos hidrometeorológicos, que permiten predecir con mayor exactitud la temperatura, las precipitaciones y los caudales de los ríos. Este conocimiento científico sobre clima, meteorología e hidrología se perfecciona continuamente gracias a la labor de agencias federales como NOAA y NASA, en estrecha colaboración con la comunidad científica.

La precisión de los pronósticos meteorológicos ha experimentado avances significativos en décadas recientes. Actualmente, alcanzamos una fiabilidad extraordinaria en previsiones a tres días. Con mayor investigación y el desarrollo de supercomputadoras más potentes, ampliaremos nuestra capacidad para realizar pronósticos con mayor anticipación, lo que permitirá gestionar de manera óptima las operaciones de nuestros embalses.

A partir de esta experiencia inicial, metodologías similares a FIRO han surgido en diversas regiones del país. En Seattle, por ejemplo, se prevé lograr un mejor equilibrio entre la protección contra inundaciones y la disponibilidad hídrica mediante la implementación de FIRO en la presa Howard Hanson de la cuenca del Río Verde. En la región del Medio Oeste, el Lago Erie cuenta con LEOFS (Sistema de Pronóstico Operativo del Lago Erie) para administrar eficientemente los niveles de agua afectados por variaciones estacionales y el cambio climático. Por su parte, la Autoridad del Valle de Tennessee también ha adoptado este enfoque de gestión de inundaciones para afrontar eventos de precipitación extrema, particularmente ante la creciente frecuencia de huracanes y otros fenómenos climáticos extremos que afectan el sur del país.

Esta revolución en la gestión hídrica trasciende fronteras. Fuera de Estados Unidos, países como Australia y Japón, así como la región mediterránea, están incorporando progresivamente los pronósticos meteorológicos en la planificación y operación de sus sistemas de embalses.

Los beneficios transformadores de implementar FIRO

El poder de FIRO reside en su capacidad para revolucionar múltiples aspectos de la gestión hídrica. En primer lugar, optimiza la disponibilidad del agua precisamente cuando más la necesitan las comunidades, el sector agrícola y los ecosistemas. Al conservar el agua en los embalses hasta que los pronósticos meteorológicos señalen una auténtica necesidad de prevención de inundaciones, aseguramos reservas hídricas vitales para nuestros característicos veranos mediterráneos.

Este sistema representa un salto cualitativo en la gestión de inundaciones respecto a los métodos tradicionales basados en calendarios con fechas predeterminadas. Con FIRO, las decisiones de liberación de agua se fundamentan en la convergencia de pronósticos meteorológicos y modelos hidrológicos (la ciencia hidrometeorológica) que identifican riesgos reales de inundación, superando así la dependencia de meras estadísticas históricas.

Una ventaja significativa del sistema FIRO es su capacidad para incrementar el almacenamiento hídrico sin requerir construcciones adicionales. En un contexto donde los nuevos proyectos de presas enfrentan crecientes obstáculos ambientales, sociales y económicos, FIRO permite extraer el máximo rendimiento de la infraestructura ya existente mediante una operación más inteligente. Adicionalmente, la precisión que proporcionan los pronósticos hidrometeorológicos facilita la programación de descargas ambientales estratégicas, garantizando que se atiendan las necesidades ecológicas de los ríos y las especias acuáticas en momentos precisos.

Por último, FIRO constituye una herramienta fundamental para fortalecer la resiliencia frente a sequías, una preocupación cada vez más acuciante conforme el cambio climático intensifica los períodos secos en numerosas regiones. Al conservar agua durante los intervalos sin riesgo de inundación dentro de la estación húmeda, tanto comunidades como agricultores pueden asegurar reservas hídricas estratégicas para afrontar episodios de sequía que, de otro modo, agotarían rápidamente los recursos disponibles y provocarían restricciones severas en el consumo.

Desafíos en el horizonte de implementación

A pesar de sus evidentes beneficios, la implementación de FIRO presenta diversos desafíos que requieren consideración. Si bien la fiabilidad de los pronósticos meteorológicos es notablemente alta, especialmente en la Costa Oeste de Estados Unidos, no todas las regiones del país o del mundo cuentan con este nivel de precisión. Siempre hay un grado de incertidumbre inherente a cualquier predicción. Aunque la exactitud de los pronósticos mejora anualmente, los operadores de embalses deben contemplar ese margen—pequeño pero existente—de incertidumbre al tomar decisiones sobre la gestión de riesgos por inundación.

Para abordar esta incertidumbre, resulta fundamental el uso de pronósticos probabilísticos y sistemas de ensambles. En situaciones donde la prudencia dicta liberar volúmenes de agua superiores a los óptimos para la protección contra inundaciones, existe la posibilidad de mitigar este impacto canalizando estos excedentes hacia proyectos de recarga de acuíferos. Estos sistemas de recarga no solo proporcionan almacenamiento subterráneo adicional, sino que también contribuyen a contrarrestar problemas de subsidencia del terreno, proteger nuestros acuíferos para que no se sequen nuestros pozos domésticos, preservar ecosistemas dependientes de aguas subterráneas y prevenir la intrusión salina en zonas costeras.

FIRO enfrenta, además, barreras técnicas e institucionales significativas. Desde la perspectiva técnica, requiere conocimientos especializados en meteorología, hidrología y gestión de embalses—competencias que no siempre están disponibles en los organismos responsables de la administración hídrica. En el plano institucional, implica una transformación cultural que abandone las operaciones basadas en calendarios predeterminados para adoptar un modelo de toma de decisiones dinámico fundamentado en pronósticos, lo que puede generar resistencia en organizaciones habituadas a metodologías convencionales. Si bien estas transiciones transformadoras requieren tiempo, es alentador que tanto el Cuerpo de Ingenieros del Ejército como la Oficina de Reclamación estén respaldando activamente las iniciativas FIRO.

Las marcadas diferencias climáticas, topográficas y de características de embalses entre distintas regiones imposibilitan la simple replicación del modelo FIRO de una cuenca a otra. Cada implementación requiere adaptaciones específicas basadas en condiciones locales. Esta diversidad subraya la importancia de integrar a las comunidades locales en los procesos decisorios, pues frecuentemente poseen un conocimiento invaluable sobre las dinámicas de la cuenca y tienen intereses legítimos en la gestión de los embalses que deben ser considerados para garantizar una implementación exitosa.

El futuro pertenece a FIRO

Los avances en ciencia climática y supercomputación continuarán perfeccionando los pronósticos meteorológicos. La inteligencia artificial (IA) está potenciando este enfoque, incrementando la efectividad de FIRO. La integración de IA en modelos meteorológicos augura una precisión sin precedentes, facilitando decisiones más acertadas sobre almacenamiento y liberación de agua. En un futuro próximo, las previsiones meteorológicas de alta precisión podrían extenderse de días a semanas, otorgando a los operadores de embalses un margen temporal más amplio para prepararse ante eventos extremos.

Conforme el cambio climático intensifica tanto las inundaciones como las sequías extremas, FIRO y metodologías afines se vuelven indispensables para la gestión hídrica moderna, como reconoce la legislación reciente en California mediante el Programa de Investigación y Mejora de Pronósticos de Ríos Atmosféricos: Habilitando la Adaptación Climática a través de Operaciones de Embalses Informadas por Pronósticos y Resiliencia ante Peligros (AR/FIRO). La ley AB30 (2023) actualizó el marco normativo para incorporar explícitamente a FIRO como herramienta estratégica en la gestión de la escasez hídrica y prevención de inundaciones.

Sin embargo, la auténtica revolución que representa FIRO trasciende el ámbito tecnológico; es una nueva concepción sobre infraestructura. En lugar de limitarnos a construir presas más grandes o diques más elevados, FIRO demuestra que, en ocasiones, las soluciones más efectivas surgen de la optimización inteligente de recursos existentes. Este paradigma refleja el pensamiento adaptativo necesario ante un clima cambiante, reminiscente de nuestras iniciativas de reconversión de tierras agrícolas hacia usos múltiples más sostenibles.

FIRO aporta la flexibilidad esencial que las operaciones hídricas requieren para adaptarse al cambio climático y sus múltiples consecuencias: deshielo prematuro, eventos extremos más frecuentes, calentamiento de aguas fluviales, mayor evaporación en lagos, intrusión marina, subsidencia y sobreexplotación de acuíferos. En el incierto panorama climático que enfrentamos, enfoques como FIRO—que abrazan la incertidumbre mediante avances científicos—resultarán determinantes para la sostenibilidad de comunidades, economías y ecosistemas. Aunque los desafíos hídricos y ambientales que aguardan son formidables, mantengo el optimismo: si confiamos en la ciencia y atendemos las voces de la ciudadanía, podremos construir un futuro hídrico caracterizado por su resiliencia y sostenibilidad.

Guardian Australia is highlighting the plight of our endangered native species during an election campaign that is ignoring broken environment laws and rapidly declining ecosystems

• Explore the series – Last chance: the extinction crisis being ignored this election
• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

The bogong moth was once so abundant it was mistaken for weather. During Sydney’s Olympic Games in 2000, a swarm of bogong moths attracted by stadium lights was so huge that meteorologists mistook it for a rain cloud.

But the species known as “deberra” in Taungurung language – an insect with deep cultural and ecological importance, but which is smaller and lighter than a paperclip – has not returned to those numbers since the population collapsed by up to 99.5% in the two years before 2019.

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

Continue reading...

More than 900 young people tell Guardian Australia they worry about money, housing and healthcare – and feel a sense of dread about the climate emergency, social cohesion and rise of the far right

• ‘Impending doom’: 20 young voters tell us what’s important to them
• Polls tracker; election guide; full federal election coverage
• Anywhere but Canberra; interactive electorates guide
• Get our afternoon election email, free app or daily news podcast

“There is a general sense – it sounds melodramatic – of, well, the world is ending, we have no way to deal with that, so we are just going to get on with life,” Axel says.

The 25-year-old is describing a feeling shared by his friends in their mid-20s.

Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter

Continue reading...

The move, focused on Nevada and New Mexico, is aimed at removing “burdensome” restrictions on energy and mineral development, a statement said.