It is well known that heat causes exhaustion in the body due to dehydration. But aging?
A recent study concluded that extreme heat accelerates the aging of the human body, a worrying fact given the increasing frequency of heat waves due to climate change.
The researchers are not talking about the effects of solar radiation on the skin, but biological aging. Unlike chronological age—that answer that you give when asked how old you are—your biological age reflects how well your cells, tissues, and organs are functioning. Biological age can be calculated by looking at physiological and molecular markers in the body as well as by using various tests, for instance by measuring lung function, cognitive ability, or bone density.
Over time, the research found, exposure to extreme heat can weaken bodily systems, which shows up in tests of people’s blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood function. In the long term, this can increase the risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and dementia. The research, which was published in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that the aging effect of extreme heat was comparable to other behaviors known to be harmful to the body, such as smoking or drinking alcohol.
The researchers analyzed the long-term medical data of 24,922 people in Taiwan, collected between 2008 and 2022. During that time, the island experienced about 30 heat waves—defined by the research team as periods of high temperature lasting for several days. The researchers first calculated the biological age of the individuals, based on the results of various medical tests, such as liver, lung, and kidney function tests. They then compared people’s biological age with their chronological age, to see how fast their biological clock was ticking relative to their actual age. They then cross-referenced this information against people’s likely exposure to heat waves.
The results showed that the more extreme heat events people experienced, the faster their biological age accelerated relative to their chronological age. On average, among the cohort of people studied, being exposed to two years’ worth of heat waves added between eight and 12 days to a person’s biological age.
“While the number itself may seem small, over time and in different populations, this effect may have significant implications for public health,” said Cui Guo, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong and lead author of the study, in a statement from Nature.
The study also found that people doing physical labor and those residing in rural areas were more likely to be affected by accelerated biological aging, presumably due to greater exposure to the effects of heat waves. However, an unexpected positive effect was observed as well: The impact of heat exposure on biological aging actually decreased over the 15 years analyzed. The reason behind this is unknown, though Guo points to the possible influence of cooling technologies such as air-conditioning, which have become more common in recent years.
This story originally appeared onWIRED en Españoland has been translated from Spanish.
This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Seen from space, Antarctica looks so much simpler than the other continents—a great sheet of ice set in contrast to the dark waters of the encircling Southern Ocean. Get closer, though, and you’ll find not a simple cap of frozen water, but an extraordinarily complex interplay between the ocean, sea ice, and ice sheets and shelves.
That relationship is in serious peril. A new paper in the journal Nature catalogs how several “abrupt changes,” like the precipitous loss of sea ice over the last decade, are unfolding in Antarctica and its surrounding waters, reinforcing one another and threatening to send the continent past the point of no return—and flood coastal cities everywhere as the sea rises several feet.
“We’re seeing a whole range of abrupt and surprising changes developing across Antarctica, but these aren’t happening in isolation,” said climate scientist Nerilie Abram, lead author of the paper. (She conducted the research while at Australian National University but is now chief scientist at the Australian Antarctic Division.) “When we change one part of the system, that has knock-on effects that worsen the changes in other parts of the system. And we’re talking about changes that also have global consequences.”
Scientists define abrupt change as a bit of the environment changing much faster than expected. In Antarctica these can occur on a range of times scales, from days or weeks for an ice shelf collapse, and centuries and beyond for the ice sheets. Unfortunately, these abrupt changes can self-perpetuate and become unstoppable as humans continue to warm the planet. “It’s the choices that we’re making right now, and this decade and the next, for greenhouse gas emissions that will set in place those commitments to long-term change,” Abram said.
A major driver of Antarctica’s cascading crises is the loss of floating sea ice, which forms during winter. In 2014, it hit a peak extent (at least since satellite observations began in 1978) around Antarctica of 20.11 million square kilometers, or 7.76 million square miles. But since then, the coverage of sea ice has fallen not just precipitously, but almost unbelievably, contracting by 75 miles closer to the coast. During winters, when sea ice reaches its maximum coverage, it has declined 4.4 times faster around Antarctica than it has in the Arctic in the last decade.
Put another way: The loss of winter sea ice in Antarctica over just the past decade is similar to what the Arctic has lost over the last 46 years. “People always thought the Antarctic was not changing compared to the Arctic, and I think now we’re seeing signs that that’s no longer the case,” said climatologist Ryan Fogt, who studies Antarctica at Ohio University but wasn’t involved in the new paper. “We’re seeing just as rapid—and in many cases, more rapid—change in the Antarctic than the Arctic lately.”
While scientists need to collect more data to determine if this is the beginning of a fundamental shift in Antarctica, the signals so far are ominous. “We’re starting to see the pieces of the picture begin to emerge that we very well might be in this new state of dramatic loss of Antarctic sea ice,” said Zachary M. Labe, a climate scientist who studies the region at the research group Climate Central, which wasn’t involved in the new paper.
High-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets are scaling fast, transforming natural capital into one of the century’s most powerful asset classes. Unsplash+
Natural capital, the planet’s stocks of soil, air, water and biodiversity, has shifted from the margins of philanthropy into the center of global finance. Once the concern of activists and campaigners, it is now emerging as a recognised asset class. As climate change, biodiversity loss and sustainability pressures mount, governments, corporations and investors are rethinking how to value and invest in ecosystems that underpin our economies.
This represents a profound paradigm shift: nature’s services are no longer just to be protected, but also priced, traded and embedded within financial systems. To understand how we reached this point, it’s worth tracing the origins of natural capital markets in early carbon trading systems, which laid the groundwork for today’s more sophisticated structures—and looking ahead to what the future may hold.
Early ventures to structured financial markets
The first formal natural capital investment frameworks emerged out of regulated carbon markets. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) established international carbon trading, and by 2005, the E.U. Emissions Trading System (E.U. ETS) became the world’s largest compliance market. Standardized allowances and credits represented one tonne of CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e) either avoided or removed from the atmosphere, making projects comparable and markets transparent.
Yet these early compliance systems were never designed to create truly investable products. They were blunt policy instruments focused on reducing emissions at the lowest cost. In practice, over-allocation and volatility led to price collapses, and the system often acted as a “licence to pollute,” permitting emitters to continue business as usual so long as they purchased allowances or credits.
In parallel, voluntary—or perhaps better described as private—carbon markets offered something more innovative: opportunities for companies or individuals to fund projects with positive environmental and increasingly social outcomes. This distinction between regulation-as-permission and voluntary action-as-restoration is central to the modern natural capital story.
Still, voluntary markets were fragmented and highly variable in pricing. In 2006, reforestation projects traded anywhere between £0.37 and £33.33 ($0.50 and $45) per tonne, while avoided deforestation and monoculture plantations commanded lower values. Early voluntary markets also faced significant integrity challenges. Project methodologies were inconsistent, verification standards varied widely and some credits were criticised for overstating emissions reductions or lacking additionality, meaning they might have happened without market funding. These early weaknesses highlighted the importance of robust standards, independent verification and transparency, lessons that continue to shape modern natural capital investment and the evolution of high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets.
Meanwhile, the United States pioneered wetland and conservation banking, where developers purchase credits to offset habitat impacts. Today, this market has expanded to more than $100 billion in credit value and can be viewed as the early ancestor of the U.K.’s Biodiversity Net Gain market. While these systems created a mechanism for private capital to flow into conservation, they were restricted to specific habitats or species and designed around achieving “no net loss” rather than genuine biodiversity uplift, limiting the diversity of investment opportunities and potential for landscape-scale enhancement.
The acceleration of private natural capital markets
Natural capital markets are now scaling quickly. Growth is fueled by compliance mandates, corporate net-zero pledges and recognition that resilient, nature-based investments are essential in a changing climate. High-integrity credits from peatland restoration, reforestation and coastal ecosystems now command premium prices.
In 2024, U.K.-accredited credits averaged £26.85 tCO₂e for Woodland Carbon Code projects. By 2025, landmark deals—including Burges Salmon x Oxygen Conservation x WCC (£125 or $169 tCO₂e for up to 8,000 tonnes) and Arup x Nattergal x Wilder Carbon (£100 or $135 tCO₂e for up to 10,000 tonnes)—reset global benchmarks. Forward projections, including the Oxygen Carbon Curve, suggest that prices for the highest-integrity credits could reach £150 ($203) tCO₂e by 2030 and potentially £500 ($675) tCO₂e by 2050.
Major corporate buyers are accelerating global demand. Microsoft, now the largest purchaser of carbon-removal credits, has secured millions of tonnes to meet its 2030 carbon-positive goal. Stripe’s Frontier fund has committed over $300 million to remove over half a million tonnes of CO₂e, while JP Morgan has invested nearly $200 million into durable carbon removal solutions. Such transactions signal institutional-scale interest and reinforce natural capital’s credibility as an asset class.
Biodiversity net gain: the U.K. compliance catalyst
The Environment Act 2021 created the U.K.’s first compliance-driven biodiversity market by mandating a 10 percent Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) for most developments from January 2024. This has spurred a growing supply chain of habitat banks and trading platforms, including Environment Bank, Gaia Marketplace and BNGx.
In its first year, mandatory BNG delivered strong signals of market activity:
Although only two percent of registered biodiversity units have been sold so far, forecasts suggest a $4 billion market by 2035. Pricing dynamics within BNG markets are also revealing. Common habitat units currently trade between £25,000 and £35,000 ($33,760 and $47,266) per unit, reflecting their broader availability. At the other end of the spectrum, the rarest units, particularly those linked to river and wetland restoration, are commanding extraordinary premiums, often exceeding £100,000 ($135,000) per unit. Their scarcity makes them both ecologically significant and highly attractive to investors seeking exposure to the most exclusive segment of the biodiversity market.
Innovation is also advancing quickly. The leading U.K. business in this space, CreditNature, has designed methodologies to baseline and measure biodiversity gains over time. These credits are increasingly viewed as the private-market equivalent of BNG, extending principles of standardization and integrity into wider ecosystem services.
Globally, demand for carbon and biodiversity natural capital credits is projected to reach between $37 and $49 billion annually by the early 2030s, with some forecasts suggesting voluntary biodiversity credits alone may be worth as much as $69 billion by 2050—underscoring the scale of opportunity.
The new frontier of natural capital
Natural capital is fast becoming one of the most compelling investment opportunities of the century. Once speculative, high-quality projects that restore ecosystems, sequester carbon and enhance biodiversity are now attracting large-scale institutional capital.
What began as a mechanism to channel private capital into environmental projects has matured into markets with robust governance, transparent measurement and increasing liquidity. The co-benefits—from cleaner air and water to healthier communities—enhance, rather than substitute, financial performance.
The U.K. is already setting the pace for global leadership in this transformation. With strong legal systems, advanced science and technology and transparent price-setting mechanisms, it is demonstrating how commercial success and ecological impact can be mutually reinforcing. Whether the challenge is climate change, biodiversity collapse or the search for diversified investment opportunities, the imperative is clear: act now. There has never been greater urgency—or greater opportunity.
WASHINGTON — The Transportation Department on Friday canceled $679 million in federal funding for a dozen offshore wind projects, the latest attack by the Trump administration on the reeling U.S. offshore wind industry.
Funding for projects in 11 states was rescinded, including $435 million for a floating wind farm in Northern California and $47 million to boost an offshore wind project in Maryland that the Interior Department has pledged to cancel.
“Wasteful, wind projects are using resources that could otherwise go towards revitalizing America’s maritime industry,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement. “Thanks to President Trump, we are prioritizing real infrastructure improvements over fantasy wind projects that cost much and offer little.”
The Trump administration has stepped up its crusade against wind and other renewable energy sources in recent weeks, cutting federal funding and canceling projects approved by the Biden administration in a sustained attack on clean energy sources that scientists say are crucial to the fight against climate change.
President Donald Trump has vowed to restore U.S. “energy dominance” in the global market and has pushed to increase U.S. reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas that emit planet-warming greenhouse gases.
California Rep. Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, called Duffy’s action “outrageous” and deeply disappointing.
Trump and his Cabinet “have a stubborn and mystifying hatred of clean energy,” Huffman said in an interview. “It’s so dogmatic. They are willing to eliminate thousands of jobs and an entire sector that can bring cheap, reliable power to American consumers.”
The canceled funding will be redirected to upgrade ports and other infrastructure in the U.S., where possible, the Transportation Department said.
Separately, Trump’s Energy Department said Friday it is withdrawing a $716 million loan guarantee approved by the Biden administration to upgrade and expand transmission infrastructure to accommodate a now-threatened offshore wind project in New Jersey.
The moves come as the administration abruptly halted construction last week of a nearly complete wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut. The Interior Department said the government needs to review the $4 billion Revolution Wind project and address national security concerns. It did not specify what those concerns are.
Democratic governors, lawmakers and union workers in New England have called for Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to reverse course.
Trump has long expressed disdain for wind power, frequently calling it an ugly and expensive form of energy that “smart” countries don’t use.
Earlier this month, the Interior Department canceled a major wind farm in Idaho, a project approved late in former President Joe Biden’s term that had drawn criticism for its proximity to a historic site where Japanese Americans were incarcerated during World War II.
Last week, with U.S. electricity prices rising at more than twice the rate of inflation, Trump lashed out, falsely blaming renewable power for skyrocketing energy costs. He called wind and solar energy “THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY!” in a social media post and vowed not to approve any wind or solar projects.
“We’re not allowing any windmills to go up unless there’s a legal situation where somebody committed to it a long time ago,” Trump said at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday.
Energy analysts say renewable sources have little to do with recent price hikes, which are based on increased demand from artificial intelligence and energy-hungry data centers, along with aging infrastructure and increasingly extreme weather events such as wildfires that are exacerbated by climate change.
Revolution Wind’s developer, Danish energy company Orsted, said it is evaluating the financial impact of stopping construction on the New England project and is considering legal proceedings.
Revolution Wind was expected to be Rhode Island and Connecticut’s first commercial-scale offshore wind farm, capable of powering more than 350,000 homes. In addition to hampering the states’ climate goals, losing out on all that renewable power could drive up electricity prices throughout the region, Democratic officials say.
Trump has made sweeping strides to prioritize fossil fuels and hinder renewable energy projects. Those include reviewing wind and solar energy permits, canceling plans to use large areas of federal waters for new offshore wind development and stopping work on another offshore wind project for New York, although construction was later allowed to resume.
Some critics say the steps to cancel projects put Americans’ livelihoods at risk.
“It’s an attack on our jobs,” Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee said of the move to stop construction of Revolution Wind. “It’s an attack on our energy. It’s an attack on our families and their ability to pay the bills.”
Patrick Crowley, president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, said his union is “going to fight (Trump) every step of the way, no matter how long it takes.”
Under Biden, the U.S. held the first-ever auction of leases for floating wind farms in December 2022. Deep waters off the West Coast are better suited for floating projects than those that are anchored in the seabed, officials said.
As the National Weather Service scrambles to hire up to 450 people to restore deep cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency, potential applicants are being asked to explain how they would advance President Donald Trump’s agenda if hired.
A posting from the weather service’s parent agency seeking meteorologists asks applicants to identify one or two of Trump’s executive orders “that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”
It’s among screening questions added to government job applications as part of a “ merit hiring plan” that Trump announced at the outset of his second term, and it’s not unique to the weather service positions. But some experts said they are alarmed at the prospect that a candidate’s ideology could matter for jobs in science.
“The fundamental question is, will this make forecasts any better? That’s the job of the weather service,” said Rick Spinrad, who led the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which includes the weather service, under former President Joe Biden.
“These people should be hired for their knowledge in meteorology or hydrology or information technology or physics — not civics. … Bottom line, I’d rather have a great forecaster who’s never read an EO than a policy muck who’s taken one meteorology class,” he said, referring to executive orders.
Spokespeople for NOAA didn’t respond to emails seeking comment.
Trump has issued numerous executive orders, and applicants could presumably choose any to endorse — or none at all, since the application says responses aren’t required, only encouraged.
But Trump has consistently attacked clean energy and climate science while promoting fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, which emit planet-warming gases. One of his first executive orders, which he dubbed “ unleashing American energy,” directed agencies to sweep away any “undue burden” to fossil fuel development. That order also canceled a series of orders from Biden that addressed climate change.
Under Trump, NOAA has stopped tracking the cost of weather disasters worsened by climate change. His administration has also moved to shut down two NASA missions that monitor a potent greenhouse gas and plant health — data seen as helpful for measuring the impacts of climate change.
Trump’s second term has been marked by accusations that he has politicized science, most recently with the ouster of the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for not being “aligned” with the president’s agenda. Separately, employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health and Federal Emergency Management Agency have issued declarations of dissent with agency actions. Some EPA and FEMA employees who signed those letters were put on leave.
Another screening question asks applicants how their “commitment to the Constitution and the founding principles of the United States” inspired them to seek the job. A third asks how they would use their skills to improve government efficiency and effectiveness.
Craig McLean, a former NOAA acting chief scientist under Biden and during Trump’s first term, said none of the questions are relevant to weather service positions. NOAA and the NWS are responsible for daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring, among other tasks.
“Asking a meteorologist to define how they as a new employee, are going to make the government more efficient is ludicrous,” McLean said. “I’d rather understand how well they are prepared to use the forecast tools and make a timely and accurate forecast.”
Jeff Masters, a meteorologist for Yale Climate Connections and co-founder of Weather Underground, said the questions amount to a loyalty test that will discourage many qualified applicants from applying.
“Whether or not you support the President’s Executive Orders will not enable a meteorologist to make a better forecast or issue a more timely tornado warning, and should have no place on a job application for the National Weather Service,” Masters said by email.
___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Wildfires are reversing decades of clean air standards in Canada and the U.S., according to new data published Thursday.
Researchers at the University of Chicago released their annual Air Quality Life Index (AQLI), which tracks air pollution and how it impacts life expectancies. This year’s report analyzed data collected in 2023.
That year, as Canada faced its worst wildfire season in history, burning over 40 million acres of land, the flames caused air pollution concentrations to rise to levels not seen since 2011 in the United States and since 1998 in Canada, the years AQLI began recording air quality data. Both Canada and the U.S. had made great strides in lowering air pollution in the past—but the wildfires reversed that progress. The two countries saw the highest increases in air pollution worldwide in 2023—despite both having strict air quality rules at the time. The fires elevated pollution levels in pockets of the U.S., and also changed the geographical distribution of pollution in the U.S. The most polluted counties in the U.S. are typically concentrated in California, but that year, wildfires caused counties in several other states including Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, and as far south as Mississippi, to be included among the most polluted.
Around the world, 2023 saw concentrations of PM2.5—small particles 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter that are released in the air by fires and other sources of pollution—increased by 1.5% compared to 2022 levels, AQLI data shows—reaching nearly five times the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Long term exposures to PM2.5 can increase the risk of health impacts including heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke.
The findings are a stark warning of what could be a new reality for tackling air quality. This year’s fire season has been the second worst on record, with a total of 18.5 million acres burned since the beginning of 2025. Climate change is causing an increase in the frequency and intensity of wildfires, with the largest increases occurring in the Western U.S. and the boreal forests of northern North America and Russia, according to a NASA study.
This comes at the same time as the Trump Administration is working to rollback clean air standards in the United States. In March, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it plans to undo landmark pollution standards, including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which regulates harmful pollutants like particulate matter.
The administration has also proposed revoking the 2009 “endangerment finding” which determined that greenhouse gases were a threat to public health and provided a legal backbone for regulations under the Clean Air Act. Researchers say that climate change and air pollution are deeply linked and that lowering carbon dioxide emissions, which raises temperatures and worsens wildfires, is an essential part of reducing air pollution.
“Both climate change and air pollution are driven by the same source—fossil fuel combustion from vehicles, power plants, and industry,” researchers wrote in the report. “In this respect, reductions in fossil fuel consumption have the potential to decrease air pollution concentrations and the risks of disruptive climate change.”
University of Chicago researchers on Thursday released their annual Air Quality Life Index, a situational update on air pollution and how it impacts life expectancy. The AQLI report said particulate pollution “remained the greatest external threat to human life expectancy,” comparing the impact to smoking.
Researchers from the university’s Energy Policy Institute analyzed pollution data collected throughout 2023 and compared it with previous years.
Michael Greenstone, a professor at the University of Chicago who created the AQLI, told CBS News his team focused on airborne particulate matter — small particles that are able to invade and wreak havoc on the body more easily than larger ones.
The data is taken from satellite readings that refresh each year and can take time to process, which is why the latest figures date back a couple of years, Greenstone said.
While global pollution only rose slightly between 2022 and 2023, the report’s authors found that updated levels remained almost five times higher than the limit recommended by the World Health Organization to protect public safety. Local changes in air quality varied from one country to the next. The differences were particularly stark in the U.S. and Canada, where airborne particulate concentrations increased more than anywhere else.
Property and homes razed by a wildfire in Celista, British Columbia, Canada, on Saturday, Aug. 19, 2023.
Cole Burston/Bloomberg via Getty Images
“Evidence of a link between climate change, wildfire smoke, and rising particulate pollution has been increasing over the past two decades,” the authors wrote in their report, citing a recent study that found human-caused climate change “increased the likelihood of autumn wind-driven extreme wildfire events, especially in the Western U.S.”
Extreme wildfires, particularly forest fires, have become larger, more common and more intense since the beginning of this century, according to NASA.
The Canadian wildfires caused particulate concentrations in Canada to soar to levels not seen since 1998, according to the AQLI. In the U.S., the wildfires drove up pollution to levels not seen since 2011 — a 20% uptick from the levels recorded in 2022. Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Mississippi were markedly affected, with pockets of those states replacing 20 counties in California as the most polluted nationwide.
Out of 3,137 American counties, the number of locations with pollution levels above the national U.S. standard rose to 308 in 2023, up from just 12 in 2022, according to the report. Forty-eight of the counties were in Ohio, 41 were in Wisconsin, 31 were in Pennsylvania, 26 were in Indiana and 19 were in Illinois, with the remaining 143 spread across the rest of the country.
In Canada, the researchers said that 50% of residents in 2023 breathed air that contained particulates in amounts exceeding their national air quality standard. That was a sharp turnaround in the country’s progress in pursuit of cleaner air, which had resulted in particulate levels falling below the national standard in previous years, said the report’s authors, noting that particulate levels in Canada’s most polluted regions were roughly equal to those of Bolivia and Honduras, two countries that face are known to face challenges addressing air quality and pollution.
The Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories experienced the country’s worst pollution, according to the report. That reflected some of the locations of destructive wildfires that collectively burned more than 71,000 acres of land from the East to West Coasts. Smoke from those blazes permeated the atmosphere over Canada and the U.S., creating hazy, and at times, orange, skies while health posing threats to people with certain conditions.
Smoke from the Tantallon wildfire rises over houses in nearby Bedford, Nova Scotia, Canada, May 28, 2023.
ERIC MARTYN / REUTERS
Wildfires scorching Canada this summer have again given rise to serious air quality concerns, for Canadians and Americans alike.
“It’s correct to think of this air pollution from the wildfires as, kind of, the ghost of fossil fuels past,” Greenstone told CBS News.
He said that the U.S. has over the last half-century made “enormous progress” toward blocking particulates generated through the burning of fossil fuels, like oil and gas, from entering the air. The AQLI credited the implementation of the Clean Air Act for reducing particulate concentrations by over 60% since 1970, which it says added 1.4 years to the life expectancy of American residents.
But the devices used to block particulates do not prevent carbon dioxide from infiltrating the atmosphere, driving up temperatures and increasing both the incidence and the severity of wildfires, Greenstone added. When trees burn in a fire, more particulates are produced and released again.
“The point we’re trying to make is that CO2 that’s released when we use fossil fuels, both historically and today, it stays up in the atmosphere for centuries, and it raises temperatures, and it will continue to for centuries,” Greenstone said. “What we’re seeing is an important consequence of that, which is, it’s going to increase the incidence of wildfires going forward. And those wildfires are causing us to breathe air that is going to cause us to lead shorter and sicker lives.”
Emily Mae Czachor is a reporter and news editor at CBSNews.com. She typically covers breaking news, extreme weather and issues involving social justice. Emily Mae previously wrote for outlets like the Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed and Newsweek.
ATHENS, Greece — Climate change that has driven scorching temperatures and dwindling rainfall made massive wildfires in Turkey, Greece and Cyprus this summer burn much more fiercely, said a new study released Thursday.
The study by World Weather Attribution said the fires that killed 20 people, forced 80,000 to evacuate and burned more than 1 million hectares (2.47 million acres) were 22% more intense in 2025, Europe’s worst recorded year of wildfires.
Hundreds of wildfires that broke out in the eastern Mediterranean in June and July were driven by temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius (about 104 Fahrenheit), extremely dry conditions and strong winds.
WWA, a group of researchers that examines whether and to what extent extreme weather events are linked to climate change, called its findings “concerning.”
“Our study finds an extremely strong climate change signal towards hotter and drier conditions,” said Theodore Keeping, a researcher at Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College in London.
“Today, with 1.3 degrees C of warming, we are seeing new extremes in wildfire behaviour that has pushed firefighters to their limit. But we are heading for up to 3 degrees C this century unless countries more rapidly transition away from fossil fuels,” Keeping said.
The study found winter rainfall ahead of the wildfires had dropped by about 14% since the pre-industrial era, when a heavy reliance on fossil fuels began. It also determined that because of climate change, weeklong periods of dry, hot air that primes vegetation to burn are now 13 times more likely.
The analysis also found an increase in the intensity of high-pressure systems that strengthened extreme northerly winds, known as Etesian winds, that fanned the wildfires.
Gavriil Xanthopoulos, research director at the Institute of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems of the Hellenic Agricultural Organization in Greece, said firefighters used to be able to wait for such winds to die down to control fires.
“It seems that they cannot count on this pattern anymore,” Xanthopoulos said. More study is needed to understand how the wind patterns are reaching high velocities more often, he said.
Flavio Lehner, an assistant professor in Earth and atmospheric sciences at Cornell University who was not involved in the WWA research, said its summary and key figures were consistent with existing literature and his understanding of how climate change is making weather more conducive to wildfire.
Climate change is “loading the dice for more bad wildfire seasons” in the Mediterranean, Lehner said.
___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
In mid-May, at about ten thousand feet above sea level, a rocky mountainside in the Swiss Alps gave way and tumbled onto a field of ice called the Birch Glacier. Half a mile below, in the Lötschen Valley, lay Blatten, a picturesque village of centuries-old wooden houses. The following night, Blatten’s mayor, Matthias Bellwald, heard crashing noises from the mountain. He quickly arranged for a helicopter to fly him and a local official who monitored natural hazards up to the site. Although the mountain, the Kleine Nesthorn, was still covered with snow, they could tell that something deeply unnatural was happening. “I saw that, on the mountain, cracks had formed,” the Mayor told me. “At first, it was just one, then several more.”
Since the nineties, the Birch Glacier, which covered an area of about fourteen city blocks, had been behaving strangely. Unlike many Alpine glaciers, which have receded as the planet warms, it had advanced down the slope, probably because of periodic rockfalls that weighed it down. As a result, Swiss authorities kept the section under constant surveillance. On Saturday, May 17th, after sensors detected more instability, the village government ordered the evacuation of what is known as the shadow side of the village, which is closest to the Kleine Nesthorn. Lukas Kalbermatten, the owner of a local hotel, told me that some village residents moved from their homes and into his property.
Soon, a crack, which was perhaps several feet wide and a hundred feet deep, was spotted between the Kleine Nesthorn and the mountain range it was a part of—suggesting that the peak itself was unstable. “The whole mountain was moving,” Kalbermatten told me. By Monday morning, experts from the canton of Valais, which encompasses Blatten, estimated that up to three million cubic metres of debris could rush down the mountain, over a nearby dam, and into the village. This time, all of Blatten’s three hundred residents, including Kalbermatten, were required to leave within twenty minutes. Officials counted them individually as they left.
By Monday evening, one flank of the Kleine Nesthorn had collapsed in on itself, sending more debris onto the glacier. Kalbermatten spent this period helping his employees find places to stay; he was optimistic that they’d be back to work soon. On May 28th, having little to do—his hotel was empty and inaccessible—he and a former colleague went up to an observation point just across the valley, where they’d have a good view of the glacier. In the hour and a half that Kalbermatten spent up there, rain started to fall. Then he saw the glacier and the mountainside begin to move. In a video that he shot, what looks like a wave of ice and stone slowly flows down from the snowy peak. A voice briefly cries out with shock, then falls silent. The slurry of glacier and debris picks up speed; by the time it reaches the treeline, farther down the slope, it has billowed into a cloud that resembles a volcanic eruption or an explosive demolition. After that, Kalbermatten stopped filming. He didn’t want to record the moment that his home town was erased. “We all knew,” he said. “It was too late.”
A local farmer, Toni Rieder, witnessed the disaster from his car, about a mile from Blatten. “I heard the crash, the blast wave,” he told me. The wreckage from the village was thrown high into the air, he said; the energy of the landslide appeared to vaporize chunks of ice into a cloud of mist. One of his friends was tending to sheep nearby—outside the evacuation zone, but inside the area that was struck. “The first thing I knew was that he was gone,” Rieder said. “It was impossible for someone to survive.”
The landslide contained an estimated nine million cubic metres of material—three times what officials had expected. It was so large that, after it reached the valley floor, it flowed up the opposite slope before sloshing back down again. The avalanche temporarily dammed the Lonza River, which runs through Blatten, and small lakes, filled with dead trees and detritus from homes, formed on each side of the village. About ninety per cent of Blatten, including Kalbermatten’s hotel, was destroyed. High above the village, the Birch Glacier was gone.
The Lonza River is normally an icy blue, but when I first saw it, on a sunny day in June, it was brown from the debris upstream. I caught a bus to Blatten from the entrance to the Lötschen Valley, where the Lonza flows into the Rhône. We drove up a series of steep switchbacks until Alpine peaks, still decked in snow, towered above us. Then the bus rounded a corner and the landslide came into view. A man in the bus stood up and, with a shocked look on his face, took a photograph with his phone. In the distance, a brown gash stretched from the mountaintops to the valley floor. Where it had cut through forest, no trees remained intact; all had been flattened or buried. Blatten now resembled a pit mine. Several rivulets flowed lazily through the debris.
I got off in Kippel, two villages before Blatten, and made my way to the town hall, which had become a staging area for the emergency response. Even at five thousand feet, the temperature was in the eighties. Upstairs, I met Mayor Bellwald, thin and tan in a red plaid shirt and hiking boots. He had occupied his position for only five months, and he looked drawn. Like everyone I interviewed in Blatten, he referred to the landslide as die Katastrophe.
Bellwald told me that, after the landslide, the first thing he felt was pain. “An entire village—history, tradition, houses, memories—simply gone in thirty seconds,” he said. His deep-set eyes peered at me through large glasses. “Then, straightaway, came the feeling that I am responsible for this community. What needs to be done now?” In the days that followed, scientists studied the slope to gauge the risk of more landslides. The national government called in the Army to secure the area. First responders searched for the missing shepherd; his remains were not recovered until weeks later. Bellwald barely saw his family. He mentioned a recent conversation with his godmother, who is in her nineties and lost a seven-century-old house. “We can’t undo it,” she’d told him. “Just get up once more than you fall down.”
Ultimately, hundreds of news outlets covered the destruction of Blatten. Experts called it unprecedented and warned that Alpine permafrost was thawing. Before-and-after photos went viral online. The media frenzy was so intense that, at one point, journalists were barred from entering the Kippel town hall. Meanwhile, Swiss newspapers debated whether Blatten should be abandoned. Beat Balzli, the editor-in-chief of the Sunday edition of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, cautioned politicians not to fall into an “empathy trap” by promising to rebuild. “The retreat of civilization reduces the potential for damage,” he wrote. “Where there is less, less is destroyed.” His argument was a version of one that Americans encounter every year, whether after hurricanes in Florida or after fires in Southern California.
I expected to hear the same debate among locals. Instead, everyone who spoke to me seemed unified around a shared message. “We have lived here for a thousand years,” Bellwald told me. “A village will be built here again.” Funding began flowing to Blatten soon after the landslide. The Swiss legislature unanimously approved six million dollars in emergency aid; a charitable group, Swiss Solidarity, quickly secured another twenty-one million in donations. But by far the largest source of financing, nearly four hundred million dollars, will come from insurance companies, many of which are headquartered in Switzerland. (Property in all parts of the country—even areas that are at the highest risk of landslides, fire, and flooding—can be insured against disasters.)
Bellwald’s conviction about rebuilding was based in part on principle. “Everyone has the right to live where they live,” he said. He pointed out that cities, too, are increasingly prone to disasters. Yet most people in Miami, Los Angeles, and New York do not seem to be retreating from the hurricanes, fires, and sea-level rise that they face. Bellwald also argued that people from the mountains are best able to weigh the dangers there. “Nature lives in people here,” he said. Locals routinely stockpile supplies because they know that blizzards and avalanches threaten the roads. Each village employs a Naturgefahren-Beobachter, or observer of natural hazards, which was one of the reasons that Blatten was evacuated so swiftly. “The mountains have already made us pretty robust,” he said. He was not downplaying the risks of future disasters but making the case for adapting to them.
When I asked the Mayor about climate change, he seemed reluctant to talk about it. “I don’t think we should politicize these issues,” he told me. The scientists I consulted had a different attitude. None of them said that climate change could fully explain the catastrophe—the Kleine Nesthorn was inherently prone to rockfalls, and the immediate cause was gravity—but all were convinced that climate change had played a key role. Switzerland has warmed at a rate twice the global average. When water soaks into thawing permafrost and refreezes, it expands, causing cracks to spider through the landscape. The Swiss Federal Office for the Environment estimates that six to eight per cent of the country’s territory is unstable. “Ice is considered as the cement of the mountains,” a geoscientist told the news agency AFP shortly after the landslide. “Decreasing the quality of the cement decreases the stability of the mountain.”
“The more critical question is whether climate change was the main factor controlling the timing of the event,” Mylène Jacquemart, a glaciologist at the university ETH Zürich who studies natural hazards, told me, in an e-mail. If climate change sped up the collapse of the mountain, it could be responsible for the scale of the destruction. A decade from now, in a warmer world, “the glacier would likely have been gone, and the whole thing would have been much less catastrophic,” Jacquemart said. Bellwald tried to look at the long-term outlook in a positive light. “Everyone says that glaciers are melting,” he said. “And that glacier is gone now.”
One of the scientists I spoke with was a distant relative of the Mayor—Dr. Benjamin Bellwald, a clean-energy geologist at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, who spent much of his youth in Blatten. During his scientific training, he studied the glaciers of the Lötschen Valley. “Blatten was always like the anchor for me,” he told me. “Even now, when I close my eyes, I can go back there and navigate through all the small roads, through every corner of the village.” He first understood the scale of the destruction when his brother sent him a photograph. He couldn’t figure out which part of Blatten it depicted.
A few weeks ago, Dr. Bellwald made his first trip to Blatten since the landslide. On a hike through the affected area, childhood memories came back to him, and his eyes filled with tears. Still, he was relieved: almost everyone in the village had survived. He felt grateful that he’d grown up “surrounded by these peaks and glaciers, even if they destroyed what I loved most.” His trip ultimately reassured him that the area can be made safe to live in again, at least for those who are patient enough to wait. What is left of the Kleine Nesthorn is still crumbling, but the village could build dams to block small landslides. Although a remnant of the upper Birch Glacier still sits far above Blatten, it’s too high up for large quantities of rock to accumulate there.
At first, Dr. Bellwald couldn’t believe that, of all the places in the world where a disaster could strike, his village, during his lifetime, was destroyed. But over time he sensed that the catastrophe did not make Blatten an outlier. “Climate change will impact everybody,” he told me. Not every country can afford to monitor every glacier or rebuild entire villages. Still, he hoped that this landslide—one of the most closely studied in history—could serve as a case study. He felt a renewed sense of urgency, not only to stop climate change by phasing out fossil fuels but also to prepare for its effects through monitoring and adaptation. “Solidarity is key,” he said, adding that we must “be empathic with all of the people on the planet.”
During my trip, I hiked as close to Blatten as I could without crossing a perimeter that the Swiss Army had established. Whenever I looked up to admire the grandeur of the mountains, my eyes would be drawn back to the scar on the landscape. A faint haze, thrown up by smaller and more recent rockfalls, hung over the site. I kept thinking of the word “sublime,” which eighteenth-century philosophers associated with the might of nature and the feeling of mortal terror.
WASHINGTON — A Trump administration proposal to reverse a landmark finding that climate change is dangerous to the public relies heavily on a report from the Department of Energy that dozens of scientists say is flawed.
The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to use the DOE’s work to overturn the climate concept known as the “endangerment finding.” If the administration succeeds, many laws and rules aimed at reducing or restricting greenhouse gas emissions could be eliminated.
The most common critique from 64 scientists who responded to questions from AP was that the administration’s reports ignored, twisted or cherry-picked information to manufacture doubt about the severity and threat of climate change. Fifty-three of the 64 scientists criticized the quality of the reports.
The Department of Energy report said Arctic sea ice has declined about 5% since 1980. That number is accurate for Antarctica, while Artic sea ice actually declined more than 40% in the period.
Jennifer Marlon, director of data science at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, highlighted a section on U.S. wildfires that acknowledged that fire data from before 1960 isn’t reliable for comparisons. Yet the administration used that unreliable data in a chart going back to 1920, leaving readers with the impression that wildfire rates were higher many decades ago than they are now, Marlon said.
Experts repeatedly said the reports were biased. Nineteen scientists used variations of the phrase “cherry pick” to describe citations in the administration reports.
Francois Bareille, a French economist, has done work concluding that previous estimates about climate-related crop losses in French agriculture were overly pessimistic. The administration’s reports cited that work, but Bareille said it shouldn’t have because it’s wrong to generalize his findings to other regions.
Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said the reports pulled a single figure from his work on climate modeling to build a case that the models scientists use are often overly pessimistic. Hausfather said his research actually concluded that climate models have performed quite well.
He called the government’s process a “farce.”
The authors of the report said any errors found will be corrected.
In a joint statement, authors of the Energy Department report said the document clearly says it’s not meant to be a comprehensive review of climate science. Instead, the authors said, it’s focused on data and topics that the media and others have underreported and overlooked.
A handful of scientists contacted by AP spoke positively about the report.
One expert cited in the work praised it, saying it departed from unnecessarily alarmist findings of other national and international climate assessments.
James Davidson, a professor at the University of Exeter focused on economics, has published work that disputes the mainstream consensus that rising carbon dioxide levels in the past caused warming.
He said the Department of Energy report is giving voice to beliefs that were previously shut out.
Mainstream scientists have already mobilized to respond. A few have voiced criticism on social media. The National Academy of Sciences, a collection of private, nonprofit institutions set up to provide independent and objective analysis, is preparing a fast-tracked special report on the latest evidence about whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Islamabad, Pakistan – As a new wave of cloudbursts, monsoon rains and floods cause havoc across Pakistan, Iqbal Solangi sits in his small house in the southern coastal city of Karachi, feeling the pain of those who lost their loved ones, land and livestock.
Since late June, a heavier-than-usual monsoon, followed by floods and landslides, has killed more than 800 people, damaged at least 7,225 houses, and washed away over 5,500 livestock in addition to the widespread destruction of crops across the country.
While the exact cause of the floods is yet to be determined, several factors could have contributed to the deluge, including climate change. Pakistan ranks among the top 10 most climate-vulnerable nations, but it contributes less than 1 percent of global emissions.
Solangi had ended his climate-change-forced exile from farming in 2022, but ended up losing his rice crop due to the flooding for a third time after the 2010 and 2012 floods, and found himself under a huge pile of debt yet again.
In 2012, he had moved from a tiny village on the border of the Sindh and Balochistan provinces to Karachi because climate change had made the profession of his forefathers unsustainable. The displacement brought to a temporary end three decades of farming.
“When my house and land were flooded and I was sitting high up watching it all being washed away, I decided I would never go back to it,” Solangi told Al Jazeera, talking about the 2022 floods, which affected 33 million people and inundated 4 million hectares (9.9 million acres) of agricultural land.
Locals collect wood from Noseri Dam near Muzaffarabad a day after flash floods [File: Sajjad Qayyum/AFP]
The Climate Rate Index report in 2025 placed Pakistan at the top of the list of the most affected countries based on 2022 data. Extensive flooding then submerged approximately a third of the country, killed more than 1,700 people, caused $14.8bn worth of damage, as well as $15.2bn of economic losses, and pushed nine million people into poverty.
In an article in August, Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper wrote: “In today’s Pakistan, the monsoon has transformed from a symbol of beauty and renewal into a harbinger of chaos and despair. What was once awaited with excitement is now approached with dread.”
Last year, more floods affected thousands, and a heatwave killed almost 600 people. The gradual rise in temperatures is also forcing the melting of the 13,000-plus glaciers in Pakistan, increasing the risk of flooding, damage to infrastructure, loss of life and land, threat to communities, and water scarcity.
Agriculture remains a key contributor to Pakistan’s economy, contributing approximately 24 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), according to Pakistan’s Bureau of Statistics (PBS). The livelihood of some 40 million people is also linked with agriculture, which employs more than 37 percent of the labour force.
In an interview with Al Jazeera earlier this year, Pakistan’s climate change minister warned that the effect of melting glaciers on the river and canal networks “would have catastrophic consequences for Pakistan’s agricultural economy”.
“These people [working on agriculture] have no economic security, and given our current economic development stage, the government lacks the wherewithal to provide for such a large segment of the population if these gushing floods wash away our infrastructure and devastate agricultural lands. From an economic and agricultural standpoint alone, the potential for devastation is immense,” Musadiq Malik said.
This year, the agriculture sector has posted a modest growth of 0.6 percent, falling well short of the 2 percent target and significantly below last year’s announced growth of 6.4 percent.
A recent study published in the Nature journal says the Indus Plain in Pakistan experienced 19 flood disasters between 1950 and 2012, affecting an area of almost 600,000sq km (231,661.3sq miles), causing 11,239 deaths and resulting in economic damage exceeding $39bn. Half of those events took place after 2000.
Figures shared by PBS show a rise in the number of farmlands across Pakistan over the last few years, from 8.6 million in 2010 to 11.7 million last year, increasing in all provinces bar Punjab. However, changes in rain patterns have also impacted farmers immensely.
In the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Basharat Jamal still tills his land but says his crop has almost vanished over the past decade due to droughts.
Jamal runs a small business to supplement his income but explains that the shift from agricultural practices has landed the region in double jeopardy. The income and produce have reduced significantly, with many farmers moving to urban centres for work. In addition, some farmers now own livestock, which, due to a lack of fodder, destroy their unprotected crops.
According to the Pakistan Economic Survey 2024-25, major crops, such as wheat and cotton, contracted by 13.5 percent, restricting the overall GDP growth rate by 0.6 percent.
Farming now is like ‘gambling with nature’
For Muhammad Hashim, a farmer in Pakistan’s largest province, Balochistan, farming in an unpredictable climate is “like gambling with nature” due to the frequent floods and droughts that have forced him to migrate multiple times.
He has stuck to farming despite “watching helplessly our crops withering and failing year after year”.
“Ten years ago, we had no choice but to leave our ancestral land and migrate in search of survival,” said Hashim. “Then came the devastating floods of 2022. Everything we had rebuilt was washed away. Our fields were destroyed again. The next year, we moved again. For a brief time, we found some peace.
“I worked on my farm and at a shop. Our children were back in school, and life started to feel normal.”
According to the Migration Policy Institute, more than eight million people were displaced by the 2022 floods, including farmers who gave up on their lands and moved to cities.
A United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report on the 2022 floods said: “2022 will be remembered as a critical, trying year for Pakistan, with growing macroeconomic and fiscal concerns, a cost of living crisis impacting the most vulnerable, and cataclysmic floods whose threats were multiplied by climate change.”
However, soon after, drought forced him to move again, but the “situation is worse than ever”.
“One year it’s floods, the next it’s drought,” he said, adding that if this pattern continued, his farming days would be over.
This story was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center.
A wildfire burns near the Golden State Freeway. (File photo courtesy OnScene.Media)
Wildfires in California wine country and Central Oregon grew overnight, prompting hundreds of evacuations as firefighters worked Sunday to try to contain the blazes amid dry, hot weather.
About 190 people were ordered to leave their homes, while another 360 were under evacuation warnings as the fire threatened about 500 structures near Aetna Springs and Pope Valley, said Jason Clay, spokesman for Calfire Sonoma Lake-Napa Unit.
More than 1,230 firefighters backed by 10 helicopters were battling the fire, which began Thursday after a week of extremely hot weather. The cause of the fire is still under investigation.
Residents of the Western United States have been sweltering in a heat wave that hospitalized some people, with temperatures forecast to hit dangerous levels throughout the weekend in Washington, Oregon, Southern California, Nevada and Arizona.
Clay said the weather has moderated since the fire broke out, with Sunday’s high expected to be 94 degrees. But as the day goes on, humidity levels were expected to drop and the winds to pick up in the afternoon.
“That’s been a driving factor in the afternoons since we’ve seen the fire activity pick up for the last three days,” Clay said, adding that “support from all up and down California has been critical to our efforts.”
The fire began in the same area as the much larger Glass Fire in 2020, which crossed into Sonoma County and eventually burned about 105 square miles and more than 1,500 structures.
That fire was driven by wind, while the current fire is fueled by dry vegetation on steep slopes — some of it dead and downed trees left over from the Glass Fire and some of it grass and brush that grew back and then dried out again, said Clay.
In Oregon, the Flat Fire in Deschutes and Jefferson counties had grown to almost 34 square miles – with no containment – and threatened nearly 4,000 homes, according to the state Fire Marshal’s Office. About 10,000 people were under some sort of evacuation notice.
The fire began Thursday night and grew quickly amid hot, gusty conditions. Fire officials were keeping an eye on isolated thunderstorms in Southern Oregon that could drift north on Sunday, spokesman Chris Schimmer said in a video posted to Facebook.
Although it’s difficult to directly tie a single fire or weather event directly to climate change, scientists say human-caused warming from burning fossil fuels like coal and gas is causing more intense heat waves and droughts, which in turn set the stage for more destructive wildfires.
A nearly complete wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut faces an uncertain future as the states’ Democratic governors, members of Congress and union workers are calling Monday for the Trump administration to let construction resume.
The administration halted construction on the Revolution Wind project last week, saying the federal government needs to review the project and address national security concerns. It did not specify what the concerns are. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said Monday it’s not commenting further at this time.
The politicians are getting involved because stopping work on Revolution Wind threatens local jobs and their states’ climate goals, and could drive up electricity prices throughout the region. All of the project’s underwater foundations and 45 out of 65 turbines are already installed.
Large, ocean-based wind farms are the linchpin of government plans to shift to renewable energy, particularly in populous East Coast states with limited land for wind turbines or solar arrays.
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont is scheduled to go to State Pier in New London, Connecticut, on Monday, where components for the Revolution Wind project are kept before being taken out to sea. Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee is headed to North Kingstown, Rhode Island, where the logistics and operations hub for the project is located.
McKee says Revolution Wind is critical to the region’s economy and energy future.
Both governors will be joined by Democratic congressmen and labor leaders. About 1,000 union members have been working on Revolution Wind, and those jobs are now at risk.
Revolution Wind is expected to be Rhode Island and Connecticut’s first large offshore wind farm, capable of powering more than 350,000 homes. Power would be provided at a rate of 9.8 cents per kilowatt hour, locked in for 20 years. That is cheaper than the average cost of electricity in New England.
The developer, Danish energy company Orsted, is evaluating the financial impact of stopping construction and considering legal proceedings.
The project site is more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) south of the Rhode Island coast, 32 miles (51 kilometers) southeast of the Connecticut coast and 12 miles (19 kilometers) southwest of Martha’s Vineyard. Rhode Island is already home to one offshore wind farm in state waters, the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm.
The Trump administration previously stopped work on Empire Wind, the New York offshore wind project. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said it appeared former President Joe Biden’s administration had “rushed through” the approvals, although the developer Equinor spent seven years obtaining permits. Construction was allowed to resume in May after two of the state’s Democratic leaders, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer and Gov. Kathy Hochul, intervened.
___
Associated Press writer Isabella O’Malley in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
PAW PAW, Mich. — Robb Rynd and his brother grew up farming and wanted to do more of it outside their day jobs, so they went in together on what’s now a little over 200 acres of corn, soybeans, wheat and sorghum. Last year was a good year, and Rynd said he enjoyed walking the fields with his kids to see how the corn was doing.
This year is a different story.
All summer he’s been scouting for brown and wilting leaves or ears of corn with kernels missing, and now it’s becoming clear that every kernel will count this harvest. “It’s almost kind of depressing to go out there and look at it and say, ‘oh yep, it does look bad,’” he said.
Across major corn-growing states, climate change is fueling conditions that make watching the corn grow a nail-biter for farmers. Factors like consistently high summer overnight temperatures, droughts and heavier-than-usual rains at the wrong time can all disrupt the plants’ pollination — making each full ear of corn less of a guarantee and more of a gamble.
Overall, corn growers got lucky this year with late-season weather that contributed to what is now predicted to be a record bumper crop. But experts say bouts of extreme weather are intensifying the waiting game during a critical time of year between planting and harvest.
Human-caused climate change has worsened multiple U.S. extreme heat events this year and has steadily increased the likelihood of hotter overnight temperatures since 1970, according to Climate Central, an independent group of scientists who communicate climate science and data to the public.
”The hot nights too, like the corn’s never getting a break. It’s just hot all the time,” Rynd said. “I know it’s wearing on me.”
As a corn plant grows, the leaves unroll to reveal the tassel, the part that sheds pollen, explained Mark Licht, an associate professor of agronomy and an extension cropping systems specialist at Iowa State University. If the plant grows too fast, which can happen when it’s consistently very hot, the tassel may be wrapped too tightly by the leaf, meaning less pollen gets released.
High temperatures can stress corn in other ways, lowering pollen production, reducing pollen’s viability or drying out other parts of the plants, reducing fertility. “I think any of the pollination issues that we might be having are more because the nights have been so exceedingly warm,” said Larry Walton, who farms near Rynd in southwestern Michigan, where many farmers irrigate because it’s a drier area.
“We tend to see pollination issues being more problematic when we have high temperatures and drought conditions or lack of rainfall,” Licht said. Yet Iowa had plenty of rain and still saw some pollination issues. Excessive moisture can cause corn smut, a type of fungus that grows on the ears.
He said farmers are having to pay more attention to this because “there’s just more variable weather.”
This winter, the U.S. drought monitor reported drought in nearly 60% of corn production areas in the Midwest. But near or above normal rainfall nearly everywhere east of the Rockies this summer brought that down to just 3% as of the beginning of August, said Brad Rippey, a meteorologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
That, combined with consistent heat, means that “we are expecting a monster U.S. corn crop in 2025,” Rippey said.
But it wasn’t easy for everyone. “This has probably been one of the most difficult growing seasons that I’ve experienced in my career,” said Philip Good, a farmer in Macon, Mississippi and chair of the United Soybean Board. He planted his corn and soybeans 60 days behind schedule because it rained nearly every day for two months.
They lost some fertilizer and some plants died in standing water, Good said, but they made up for it with some lucky weather later in the season.
“The rain does fall in heavier bursts,” Rippey said. He said that can be an issue for farmers because even when it doesn’t cause flash floods, the moisture doesn’t necessarily percolate into the soil. It runs off and carries fertilizer with it, which is a problem for rivers’ health and farmers’ pocketbooks.
The trend toward higher humidity levels and warmer ocean temperatures, contributing to hotter nights, could be a bigger issue going forward, putting stress on crops like corn and soybeans, Rippey added.
Late summer is a make-or-break time for farmers: They’re trying to gauge how much they’ll make from the year’s crop and planning their next steps, and patchy pollination doesn’t help.
“We’d like to upgrade a tractor … or we’d maybe try to pick up some more ground,” Rynd said. “It’s hard to want to go do those things when you have a bad year like this.”
When the uncertain pollination is at its worst, if 15% to 25% of every ear of corn doesn’t have kernels, that could mean a significant yield loss over a large field, said Nicolle Ritchie, a Michigan State University extension agent who helps Walton and Rynd survey their crops.
Jason Cope co-founded a farm tech company called PowerPollen whose equipment can mechanically collect pollen and then pollinate future crops. He said that due to extreme weather events, the number of “rescue” pollination jobs they’ve done for customers — to save fields that didn’t naturally pollinate very well — has nearly doubled since they started in 2018.
Walton said he can manage as long as the pollination issues don’t get too bad.
“You learn to roll with the stress part of it because most of that you can’t control anyway,” he added. ___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Oslo —The world’s first commercial service offering carbon storage off Norway’s coast has carried out its inaugural CO2 injection into the North Sea seabed, the Northern Lights consortium operating the site said Monday.
The project by Northern Lights, which is led by oil giants Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies, involves transporting and burying CO2 captured at smokestacks across Europe. The aim is to prevent the emissions from being released into the atmosphere, and thereby help halt climate change.
“We now injected and stored the very first CO2 safely in the reservoir,” Northern Lights’ managing director Tim Heijn said in a statement. “Our ships, facilities and wells are now in operation.”
In concrete terms, after the CO2 is captured, it is liquified and transported by ship to the Oygarden terminal near Bergen on Norway’s western coast.
The liquefied CO2 (LCO2) carrier Northern Pioneer of Northern Lights is pictured at Akershuskaia, Oslo, June 17, 2025 in connection with the international high-level conference on carbon management.
STIAN LYSBERG SOLUM/NTB/AFP/Getty
It is then transferred into large tanks before being injected through a 68-mile pipeline into the seabed, at a depth of around 1.6 miles, for permanent storage.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has been listed as a climate tool by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), especially for reducing the CO2 footprint of industries such as cement and steel that are difficult to decarbonize.
The first CO2 injection into the Northern Lights geological reservoir was from Germany’s Heidelberg Materials cement plant in Brevik in southeastern Norway.
But CCS technology is complex, controversial and costly.
Without financial assistance, it is currently more profitable for industries to purchase “pollution permits” on the European carbon market than to pay for capturing, transporting and storing their CO2.
The Northern Lights carbon storage site in Øygarden, Norway, is seen on May 28, 2025.
The Washington Post/Getty
Northern Lights has so far signed just three commercial contracts in Europe. One is with a Yara ammonia plant in the Netherlands, another with two of Orsted’s biofuel plants in Denmark, and the third with a Stockholm Exergi thermal power plant in Sweden.
Largely financed by the Norwegian state, Northern Lights has an annual CO2 storage capacity of 1.7 million tons, which is expected to increase to 5.5 million tons by the end of the decade.
While efforts such as Northern Lights are focused on capturing carbon directly from the most highly-polluting sources — industrial smoke stacks — there have also been efforts launched to capture the gas from the ambient air, an even more controversial methodology.
Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University professor of environmental engineering, told CBS News earlier this year that he was dubious of the motivations for and the efficacy of both kinds of carbon capture, and he said bluntly that “direct air capture is not a real solution. We do not have time to waste with this useless technology.”
Jacobson thinks direct air capture, in particular, is a boondoggle, and more effort should be focused on switching to clean energy sources.
Currently, the U.S. gets about 60% of its electricity from fossil fuels.
“You have to think about who’s proposing this technology,” Jacobson said. “Who stands to benefit from carbon capture and direct air capture? It’s the fossil-fuel companies.”
“They’re just saying, ‘Well, we’re extracting as much CO2 as we’re emitting. Therefore, we should be allowed to keep polluting, keep mining,” Jacobson told CBS News, adding that his stance has not made him popular among many in the energy sector.
“Oh, yeah, diesel people hate me, gasoline people hate me, ethanol people hate me, nuclear people hate me, coal people hate me. They do, because I’m telling the truth,” he said. “We don’t need any of these technologies.”
COLORADO SPRINGS — Administrators at the University of Colorado’s campus in Colorado Springs thought they stood a solid chance of dodging the Trump administration’s offensive on higher education.
Located on a picturesque bluff with a stunning view of Pikes Peak, the school is far removed from the Ivy League colleges that have drawn President Donald Trump’s ire. Most of its students are commuters, getting degrees while holding down full-time jobs. Students and faculty alike describe the university, which is in a conservative part of a blue state, as politically subdued, if not apolitical.
That optimism was misplaced.
An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of emails from school officials, as well as interviews with students and professors, reveals that school leaders, teachers and students soon found themselves in the Republican administration’s crosshairs, forcing them to navigate what they described as an unprecedented and haphazard degree of change.
Whether Washington has downsized government departments, clawed back or launched investigations into diversity programs or campus antisemitism, the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs has confronted many of the same challenges as elite universities across the nation.
The school lost three major federal grants and found itself under investigation by Trump’s Education Department. In the hopes of avoiding that scrutiny, the university renamed websites and job titles, all while dealing with pressure from students, faculty and staff who wanted the school to take a more combative stance.
“Uncertainty is compounding,” the school’s chancellor told faculty at a February meeting, according to minutes of the session. “And the speed of which orders are coming has been a bit of a shock.”
The college declined to make any administrators available to be interviewed. A spokesman asked the AP to make clear that any professors or students interviewed in this story were speaking for themselves and not the institution. Several faculty members also asked for anonymity, either because they did not have tenure or they did not want to call unnecessary attention to themselves and their scholarship in the current political environment.
“Like our colleagues across higher education, we’ve spent considerable time working to understand the new directives from the federal government,” the chancellor, Jennifer Sobanet, said in a statement provided to the AP.
Students said they have been able to sense the stress being felt by school administrators and professors.
“We have administrators that are feeling pressure, because we want to maintain our funding here. It’s been tense,” said Ava Knox, a rising junior who covers the university administration for the school newspaper.
Faculty, she added, “want to be very careful about how they’re conducting their research and about how they’re addressing the student population. They are also beholden to this new set of kind of ever-changing guidelines and stipulations by the federal government.”
A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
Misplaced optimism
Shortly after Trump won a second term in November, UCCS leaders were trying to gather information on the Republican’s plans. In December, Sobanet met the newly elected Republican congressman who represented the school’s district, a conservative one that Trump won with 53% of the vote. In her meeting notes obtained by the AP, the chancellor sketched out a scenario in which the college might avoid the drastic cuts and havoc under the incoming administration.
“Research dollars –- hard to pull back grant dollars but Trump tried to pull back some last time. The money goes through Congress,” Sobanet wrote in notes prepared for the meeting. “Grant money will likely stay but just change how they are worded and what it will fund.”
Sobanet also observed that dismantling the federal Education Department would require congressional authorization. That was unlikely, she suggested, given the U.S. Senate’s composition.
Like many others, she did not fully anticipate how aggressively Trump would seek to transform the federal government.
Conservatives’ desire to revamp higher education began well before Trump took office.
They have long complained that universities have become bastions of liberal indoctrination and raucous protests. In 2023, Republicans in Congress had a contentious hearing with several Ivy League university leaders. Shortly after, the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania resigned. During the presidential campaign last fall, Trump criticized campus protests about Gaza, as well as what he said was a liberal bias in classrooms.
His new administration opened investigations into alleged antisemitism at several universities. It froze more than $400 million in research grants and contracts at Columbia, along with more than $2.6 billion at Harvard. Columbia reached an agreement last month to pay $220 million to resolve the investigation.
When Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s actions, his administration tried to block the school from enrolling international students. The Trump administration has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
Northwestern University, Penn, Princeton and Cornell have seen big chunks of funding cut over how they dealt with protests about Israel’s war in Gaza or over the schools’ support for transgender athletes.
Trump’s decision to target the wealthiest, most prestigious institutions provided some comfort to administrators at the approximately 4,000 other colleges and universities in the country.
Most higher education students in the United States are educated at regional public universities or community colleges. Such schools have not typically drawn attention from culture warriors.
Students and professors at UCCS hoped Trump’s crackdown would bypass the school and others like it.
“You’ve got everyone — liberals, conservatives, middle of the road,” said Jeffrey Scholes, a professor in the philosophy department. “You just don’t see the kind of unrest and polarization that you see at other campuses.”
The purse strings
The federal government has lots of leverage over higher education. It provides about $60 billion a year to universities for research. In addition, a majority of students in the U.S. need grants and loans from various federal programs to help pay tuition and living expenses.
This budget year, UCCS got about $19 million in research funding from a combination of federal, state and private sources. Though that is a relatively small portion of the school’s overall $369 million budget, the college has made a push in recent years to bolster its campus research program by taking advantage of grant money from government agencies such as the U.S. Defense Department and National Institutes for Health. The widespread federal grant cut could derail those efforts.
School officials were dismayed when the Trump administration terminated research grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Defense Department and the National Science Foundation, emails show. The grants funded programs in civics, cultural preservation and boosting women in technology fields.
School administrators scrambled to contact federal officials to learn if other grants were on the chopping block, but they struggled to find answers, the records show.
School officials repeatedly sought out the assistance of federal officials only to learn those officials were not sure what was happening as the Trump administration halted grant payments, fired thousands of employees and shuttered agencies.
“The sky is falling” at NIH, a university official reported in notes on a call in which the school’s lobbyists were providing reports of what was happening in Washington.
There are also concerns about other changes in Washington that will affect how students pay for college, according to interviews with faculty and education policy experts.
While only Congress can fully abolish the U.S. Department of Education, the Trump administration has tried to dramatically cut back its staff and parcel out many of its functions to other agencies. The administration laid off nearly 1,400 employees, and problems have been reported in the systems that handle student loans. Management of student loans is expected to shift to another agency entirely.
In addition, an early version of a major funding bill in Congress included major cuts to tuition grants. Though that provision did not make it into the law, Congress did cap loans for students seeking graduate degrees. That policy could have ripple effects in the coming years on institutions such as UCCS that rely on tuition dollars for their operating expenses.
DEI and transgender issues hit campus
To force change on campus, the Trump administration has begun investigations targeting diversity programs and efforts to combat antisemitism.
The Education Department, for example, opened an investigation in March targeting a Ph.D. scholarship program that partnered with 45 universities, including UCCS, to expand opportunities to women and nonwhites in graduate education. The administration alleged the program was only open to certain nonwhite students and amounted to racial discrimination.
“Sorry to be the bearer of bad news UCCS is included on the list” of schools being investigated, wrote Annie Larson, assistant vice president of federal relations and outreach for the entire University of Colorado system.
“Oh wow, this is surprising,” wrote back Hillary Fouts, dean of the graduate school at UCCS.
UCCS also struggled with how to handle executive orders, particularly those on transgender issues.
In response to an order that aimed to revoke funds to schools that allowed transwomen to play women’s sports, UCCS began a review of its athletic programs. It determined it had no transgender athletes, the records show. University officials were also relieved to discover that only one school in their athletic conference was affected by the order, and UCCS rarely if ever had matches or games against that school.
“We do not have any students impacted by this and don’t compete against any teams that we are aware of that will be impacted by this,” wrote the vice chancellor for student affairs to colleagues.
Avoiding the spotlight
The attacks led UCCS to take preemptive actions and to self-censor in the hopes of saving programs and avoiding the Trump administration’s spotlight.
Emails show that the school’s legal counsel began looking at all the university’s websites and evaluating whether any scholarships might need to be reworded. The university changed the web address of its diversity initiatives from www.diversity.uccs.edu to www.belonging.uccs.edu.
And the administrator responsible for the university’s division of Inclusive Culture & Belonging got a new job title in January: director of strategic initiatives. University professors said the school debated whether to rename the Women’s and Ethnic Studies department to avoid drawing attention from Trump but so far the department has not been renamed.
Along the same lines, UCCS administrators have sought to avoid getting dragged into controversies, a frequent occurrence in the first Trump administration. UCCS officials attended a presentation from the education consulting firm EAB, which encouraged schools not to react to every news cycle. That could be a challenge because some students and faculty are seeking vocal resistance on issues from climate change to immigration.
Soon after Trump was sworn in, for example, a staff member in UCCS’s sustainability program began pushing the entire University of Colorado system to condemn Trump’s withdrawal from an international agreement to tackle climate change. It was the type of statement universities had issued without thinking twice in past administrations.
In an email, UCCS’s top public relations executive warned his boss: “There is a growing sentiment among the thought leadership in higher ed that campus leaders not take a public stance on major issues unless they impact their campus community.”
—
AP Education Writer Collin Binkley in Washington contributed to this report.
The Trump administration halted construction on a nearly complete offshore wind project near Rhode Island as the White House continues to attack the battered U.S. offshore wind industry that scientists say is crucial to the urgent fight against climate change.
Danish wind farm developer Orsted says the Revolution Wind project is about 80% complete, with 45 out of its 65 turbines already installed.
Despite that progress — and the fact that the project had cleared years of federal and state reviews — the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued the order Friday, saying the federal government needs to review the project and “address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States.”
It did not specify what the national security concerns are.
President Donald Trump has made sweeping strides to prioritize fossil fuels and hinder renewable energy projects. Trump recently called wind and solar power “THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY!” in a social media post and vowed not to approve wind or “farmer destroying Solar” projects. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!” he wrote on his Truth Social site this week.
Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee criticized the stop-work order and said he and Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont “will pursue every avenue to reverse the decision to halt work on Revolution Wind” in a post on X.
Construction on Revolution Wind began in 2023, and the project was expected to be fully operational next year. Orsted says it is evaluating the financial impact of stopping construction and is considering legal proceedings.
Revolution Wind is located more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) south of the Rhode Island coast, 32 miles (51 kilometers) southeast of the Connecticut coast and 12 miles (19 kilometers) southwest of Martha’s Vineyard. Rhode Island is already home to one offshore wind farm, the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm.
Revolution Wind was expected to be Rhode Island and Connecticut’s first commercial-scale offshore wind farm, capable of powering more than 350,000 homes. The densely populated states have minimal space available for land-based energy projects, which is why the offshore wind project is considered crucial for the states to meet their climate goals.
“This arbitrary decision defies all logic and reason — Revolution Wind’s project was already well underway and employed hundreds of skilled tradesmen and women. This is a major setback for a critical project in Connecticut, and I will fight it,” Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal said in a statement.
Green Oceans, a nonprofit that opposes the offshore wind industry, applauded the BOEM’s decision. “We are grateful that the Trump Administration and the federal government are taking meaningful action to preserve the fragile ocean environment off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts,” the nonprofit said in a statement.
This is the second major offshore wind project the White House has halted. Work was stopped on Empire Wind, a New York offshore wind project, but construction was allowed to resume after New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Gov. Kathy Hochul intervened.
“This administration has it exactly backwards. It’s trying to prop up clunky, polluting coal plants while doing all it can to halt the fastest growing energy sources of the future – solar and wind power,” said Kit Kennedy, managing director for the power division at Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. “Unfortunately, every American is paying the price for these misguided decisions.”
___
Reporter Jennifer McDermott contributed from Providence, Rhode Island, and Matthew Daly contributed from Washington.
___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
This story originally appeared on Vox and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Air conditioners have been working overtime this hot summer, from those tiny window units to the massive AC towers that serve the tightly packed apartment buildings in major cities. And while they bring the relief of cool air, these contraptions also create the conditions for dangerous bacteria to multiply and spread.
One particularly nasty bacteria-borne illness is currently spreading in New York City using those enormous cooling units as its vector: Legionnaire’s disease. The bacterial pneumonia, which usually recurs each summer in the US’s largest city, has sickened more than 100 people and killed five in a growing outbreak.
If you don’t live in New York City or the Northeast, you may never have heard of Legionnaire’s, but this niche public health threat may not be niche for much longer.
Climate change is helping to make Legionnaire’s disease both more plentiful in the places where it already exists and creating the potential for it to move to new places where the population may not be accustomed to it. Cities in the Northeast and Midwest, where hotter weather meets older infrastructure, have reported more cases in recent years. Recently, Legionella bacteria was discovered in a nursing home’s water system in Dearborn, Michigan—one of the states, along with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin, that have seen more activity in the past few years.
Anyone can contract Legionnaire’s disease by inhaling tiny drops containing the bacteria, and the symptoms—fever, headache, shortness of breath—appear within days. It can cause a severe lung infection, with a death rate of around 10 percent.
While healthier people often experience few symptoms, the more vulnerable—young children, the elderly, pregnant people, and those with compromised immune systems—face serious danger from the illness. Around 5,000 people die every year in the United States from Legionnaire’s disease, many of them living in low-income housing with outdated cooling equipment where the bacteria can more readily grow and spread.
Legionnaire’s disease is a microcosm of climate change’s impact on low-income communities. As warmer temperatures facilitate the spread of disease, the most socially vulnerable populations are going to pay the steepest price.
The Collision of Legionnaire’s Disease, Climate Change, and Economic Disparities
Legionnaire’s disease was first documented after an unusually aggressive pneumonia outbreak during an American Legion conference in Philadelphia in 1976. Soon, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientists confirmed the cause of the mysterious illness: a previously unknown bacteria that was accordingly named Legionella. Legionella, unfortunately, is everywhere—in streams, lakes, and water pipes across the country.
But usually, it occurs in such low concentrations and is so remote that it doesn’t pose a threat to humans. Usually.
Now, city health officials have found the bacteria in the large cooling tanks that serve massive apartment buildings across New York City, particularly in Harlem. Cooling tanks are ideal places for Legionnaire’s to grow and spread. They’re filled with stagnant, warm water that is more hospitable to bacterial growth. Like an evaporative cooler, the systems convert warm stagnant water into cool air for apartment dwellers. They can spray mists laden with the bacteria into the open air, dispersing it across the surrounding air, where it can enter a person’s lungs when they inhale. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 80 percent of Legionnaire’s cases are linked to potable water systems.
Air pollution from oil and gas is linked to 91,000 premature deaths and hundreds of thousands of health issues across the United States each year—with Black, Asian, Native American and Hispanic groups consistently among the most affected. That’s according to an extensive new study published Aug. 22.
The researchers say that the study, published today inScience Advances, is the first to comprehensively quantify the health impacts outdoor air pollution has across all stages of fossil fuel production, and to analyze disparities in exposure to the health risks.
The study examined the entire oil and gas life cycle: upstream, which involves the exploration and extraction of oil and gas; midstream, which involves compression, transport, and storage; downstream, which involves the transformation into petrochemical products; and end use, when the product reaches its final use stages.
Native American and Hispanic populations are most affected by air pollution that comes from the upstream and midstream stages, the study found, while Black and Asian populations are most impacted by downstream and end-use stages. Researchers also found that 10,350 pre-term births and 216,000 new cases of childhood asthma per year are attributable to air pollution from oil and gas, along with 1,610 lifetime cancers across the U.S.
While downstream activities cause less pollution than upstream and end-use activities, they are responsible for greater adverse health impacts, with Black communities facing the most severe health outcomes—including premature mortality, preterm births, and childhood asthma. These impacts are largely experienced in locations with major oil-refining activities, such as eastern Texas and southern Louisiana.
Researchers used an air pollution model to determine pollution concentrations, and applied that information to epidemiological models to estimate the number of severe health outcomes. They used data from 2017, the most recent year of complete data available, and estimate that the findings might be conservative, given that U.S. oil and gas production has since increased by 40%.
Eloise Marais, the study’s senior author and professor of atmospheric chemistry and air quality at University College London, says that the findings confirm what communities have long known. “We’re not sitting in our academic ivory tower and telling these communities that they’re experiencing adverse health outcomes. They know this already and they’re going through processes to try and address it,” says Marais. “What our study does is ensures that we can provide really rigorous evidence of the size of the impact in the hope that this is picked up by community leaders, by advocacy groups, by policy makers…to try and identify exactly where, in more granular detail, these disparities are occurring, to essentially develop very clear action plans to address them.”
The solution is clear, the researchers say. While greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere can linger for years, once air pollution is reduced the health benefits are nearly instantaneous. “[The study] gives us a very clear perspective on what the public health gains could be, and they would be quite immediate if we reduced our independence on oil and gas,” says Marais. “We would start to see immediate benefits on air quality and health, and we would have mitigated a large portion of the disparities in health burdens.”
Marissa Loewen first started using artificial intelligence in 2014 as a project management tool. She has autism and ADHD and said it helped immensely with organizing her thoughts.
“We try to use it conscientiously though because we do realize that there is an impact on the environment,” she said.
Her personal AI use isn’t unique anymore. Now it’s a feature in smartphones, search engines, word processors and email services. Every time someone uses AI, it uses energy that is often generated by fossil fuels. That releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contributes to climate change.
And it’s getting harder to live without it.
The climate cost
AI is largely powered by data centers that field queries, store data and deploy information. As AI becomes ubiquitous, the power demand for data centers increases, leading to grid reliability problems for people living nearby.
“Since we are trying to build data centers at a pace where we cannot integrate more renewable energy resources into the grid, most of the new data centers are being powered by fossil fuels,” said Noman Bashir, computing and climate impact fellow with MIT’s Climate and Sustainability Consortium.
The data centers also generate heat, so they rely on fresh water to stay cool. Larger centers can consume up to 5 million gallons (18.9 million liters) a day, according to an article from the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. That’s roughly the same as the daily water demand for a town of up to 50,000 people.
It’s difficult to imagine, because for most users the impact isn’t visible, said AI and Climate Lead Sasha Luccioni with the AI company, Hugging Face.
“In one of my studies, we found that generating a high-definition image uses as much energy as charging half of your phone. And people were like, ‘That can’t be right, because when I use Midjourney (a generative AI program), my phone battery doesn’t go down,’” she said.
Jon Ippolito, professor of new media at the University of Maine, said tech companies are constantly working to make chips and data centers more efficient, but that does not mean AI’s environmental impact will shrink. That’s because of a problem called the Jevons Paradox.
“The cheaper resources get, the more we tend to use them anyway,” he said. When cars replaced horses, he said, commute times didn’t shrink. We just traveled farther.
Quantifying AI’s footprint
How much those programs contribute to global warming depends on a lot of factors, including how warm it is outside the data center that’s processing the query, how clean the grid is and how complex the AI task is.
Information sources on AI’s contributions to climate change are incomplete and contradictory, so getting exact numbers is difficult.
But Ippolito tried anyway.
He built an app that compares the environmental footprint of different digital tasks based on the limited data he could find. It estimates that a simple AI prompt, such as, “Tell me the capital of France,” uses 23 times more energy than the same question typed into Google without its AI Overview feature.
“Instead of working with existing materials, it’s writing them from scratch. And that takes a lot more compute,” Luccioni said.
And that’s just for a simple prompt. A complex prompt, such as, “Tell me the number of gummy bears that could fit in the Pacific Ocean,” uses 210 times more energy than the AI-free Google search. A 3-second video, according to Ippolito’s app, uses 15,000 times as much energy. It’s equivalent to turning on an incandescent lightbulb and leaving it on for more than a year.
It’s got a big impact, but it doesn’t mean our tech footprints were carbon-free before AI entered the scene.
Watching an hour of Netflix, for example, uses more energy than a complex AI text prompt. An hour on Zoom with 10 people uses 10 times that much.
“It’s not just about making people conscious of AI’s impact, but also all of these digital activities we take for granted,” he said.
Limit tech, limit tech’s climate impact
Ippolito said he limits his use of AI when he can. He suggests using human-captured images instead of AI-generated ones. He tells the AI to stop generating as soon as he has the answer to avoid wasting extra energy. He requests concise answers and he begins Google searches by typing “-ai” so it doesn’t provide an AI overview for queries where he doesn’t need it.
Loewen has adopted the same approach. She said she tries to organize her thoughts into one AI query instead of asking it a series of iterative questions. She also built her own AI that doesn’t rely on large data centers, which saves energy in the same way watching a movie you own on a DVD is far less taxing than streaming one.
“Having something local on your computer in your home allows you to also control your use of the electricity and consumption. It allows you to control your data a little bit more,” she said.
Luccioni uses Ecosia, which is a search engine that uses efficient algorithms and uses profits to plant trees to minimize the impact of each search. Its AI function can also be turned off.
ChatGPT also has a temporary chat function so the queries you send to the data center get deleted after a few weeks instead of taking up data center storage space.
But AI is only taking up a fraction of the data center’s energy use. Ippolito estimates roughly 85% is data collection from sites like TikTok and Instagram, and cryptocurrency.
His answer there: make use of screen time restrictions on your phone to limit time scrolling on social media. Less time means less personal data collected, less energy and water used, and fewer carbon emissions entering the atmosphere.
“If you can do anything that cuts a data center out of the equation, I think that’s a win,” Ippolito said.
___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.