Donald Trump
WASHINGTON: The United States has gone cold on global warming after putting climate safeguards on ice. In a sweeping move, President Donald Trump on Thursday revoked the 2009 “endangerment finding” issued under Barack Obama, which had de... [3409 chars]

US News: WASHINGTON: The United States has gone cold on global warming after putting climate safeguards on ice. In a sweeping move, President Donald Trump on T.

Times of India

Global warming, American cooling: US freezes climate science

Planned or under-construction solar and wind projects slowed last year, casting doubts on whether countries will hit a goal of tripling renewable capacity by decade-end.
Dozens of nations agreed in 2023 to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 as ... [2372 chars]

Planned or under-construction solar and wind projects slowed last year, casting doubts on whether countries will hit a goal of tripling renewable capacity by decade-end. Dozens of nations agreed in 2023 to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 as part of efforts to limit global warming. But announcements and construction…

Japan Today

Solar, wind capacity growth slowed last year, analysis shows

From Legal Insurrection
The Midwest is so cold that even the “Global Warming” jokes froze over.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
Last November, we examined a controversial scientific report asserting that a vital Atlantic current could falter within decades,... [5402 chars]

After weeks of bone-chilling cold and headlines about record ice, it’s hard not to wonder if that “New Ice Age” theory is inching a little too close for comfort. For now, winter seems determined to overstay its welcome…making even the most skeptical among us start rooting for a little global warming and a more active…

Watts Up With That

Lake Erie is Nearly 100% Ice-Covered After Great Lakes Region Slammed by Cold Stretch

The wintry weather up and down the eastern seaboard sure has people chattering. Or maybe their teeth are chattering and words are just, inevitably, dribbling out. From the Carolinas right through to Nova Scotia, it has been cold this last week. Thoug... [9602 chars]

These temperatures used to be normal. This winter is similar to an average winter in the 1980s, but the reason for this once-average cold is entirely new — and, paradoxically, it is completely because of global warming,

Resilience

What's with this cold?

UK winters are set to get even wetter thanks to climate change.
That's according to a new study, which has given a very soggy glimpse into the future of British weather.
Across the entire country, the opening weeks of the year have been exceptionally... [3189 chars]

Scientists from the University of Newcastle say that for every 1°C of global warming, winter rainfall will increase by seven per cent.

Daily Mail Online

You think this is bad? British winters will get even WETTER thanks to climate change, scientists warn

By ISABEL DEBRE
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Human-caused climate change had an important impact on the recent ferocious wildfires that engulfed parts of Chile and Argentina’s Patagonia region, making the extremely high-risk conditions that led to ... [4924 chars]

A team of researchers say human-caused climate change had an important impact on the recent wildfires that engulfed parts of Chile and Argentina’s Patagonia region, making the extremely high-risk conditions up to three times more likely than in a world without global warming.

Boulder Daily Camera

Study finds climate change set stage for wildfires in Argentina, Chile

Santa Rosa Press Democrat

Santa Ana Orange County Register

Baltimore Sun

To place an obituary, please include the information from the obituary checklist below in an email to obits@pioneerpress.com. There is no option to place them through our website at this time. Feel free to contact our obituary desk at 651-228-5263 wi... [8857 chars]

St. Paul Pioneer Press

At the recent World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney proclaimed"a rupture" in the global "rules-based order" and a turn to great power rivalry.
While its demise is not certain, even the current disruption to global order, largely due to the Donald Trump administration in the United States, promises profound impacts on the global response to climate change. The world is at risk of losing even the insufficient progress made in the last decade.
But it's unclear what that effect will be. That uncertainty is both a cause for concern and a source of hope. The climate crisis is not slowing, and humanity must figure out how to navigate the disruption.
Unfortunately, much of what we know about how climate politics works has depended on a relatively stable rules-based order. That order, however problematic, provided institutions like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.
It also established trade rules for energy technology, co-operative agreements on public and private climate finance, and parameters for how civil society and states interact. It structured the opportunities and obstacles for acting on climate change.
Everyone who cares about climate action must now grapple with how climate politics can function in a new world of uncertainty. It won't be easy.
But, to inject a slight note of hope, I'm not convinced that meeting the climate challenge is harder now. It's difficult in a different way. Let's be clear: the rules-based order was not producing effective global co-operation on climate change.
Limited successes of the rules-based order
The U.S. has consistently been an obstacle to global climate action. As Carney noted, under the rules-based order, "the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient." Clearly, the U.S. decided from very early on that a stable climate was not a public good it was willing to seriously support.
The U.S. failed to see benefits from climate action that outweighed the perception of costs and has consistently been influenced by status quo, fossil-capital economic interests.
That's not to say there was no progress under the old rules-based system. At least five sources of progress are worth highlighting:
A coalition of the ambitious, mostly anchored in Europe, consistently pushed for action. This coalition stayed in the Kyoto Protocol and took action domestically, moving forward on emissions reductions and globally significant technological innovation.
The changing political economy of renewable energy has drastically decreased the costs of wind and solar power.
The growth of municipal, sub-national and transnational efforts expanded the reach of climate action while also maintaining some momentum in countries, like the U.S., that were reluctant to move aggressively.
Public support and concern over the climate has grown, in part because the increasing impacts of climate change have made it a tangible problem of the present, not future.
There's now a different global architecture for climate governance with the Paris Agreement —one based on collected national actions rather than global collective action. This new architecture was less vulnerable to the first U.S. withdrawal in 2016.
Possibilities for progress
These sources of past progress on climate action could survive the current disruption and play a role in increasing momentum in the global response to climate change. But uncertainties and questions are more plentiful than answers.
A coalition of the ambitious is clearly what Carney's speech is seeking to catalyze among middle powers. He was not talking about climate change, but a commitment to climate action could and should be a cornerstone that a new order is built upon. This may even attract one of those competing great powers that he alluded to—China. Will China see climate leadership as a means to enhance its global position?
The political economy of renewable energy has momentum that is at least somewhat insulated from the current disruption. How insulated it remains depends on a number of uncertainties.
What will trade rules and practices look like moving forward? What happens within the fossil-fuel energy sector as the U.S. continues to engage in resource imperialism? How will resource competition and co-operation in the renewables sector (over critical minerals, for example) play out moving forward?
Can experimental efforts be a source of resistance and change within the U.S., especially among individual states? And can they play the same role that they did previously, catalyzing further innovation and public support?
Public support for climate action in this new era will likely vary wildly by country. How will growing dissatisfaction with the status quo play out as it intersects with increasingly severe climate impacts?
This could generate further support for right-wing populism. However, affordability and inequality concerns could also become the foundation for building support for climate action and a just transition.
Does the Paris Agreement survive this? It could become a backbone institution for the coalition of the ambitious. The U.S. is gone, again. Maybe other recalcitrant governments should be sidelined from multilateral climate efforts as well, and those willing to act can proceed.
If full global co-operation around climate change is no longer even a façade of the possible now, then the imperative to bring everyone along at each step in the process may evaporate.
None of the ways forward I've laid out here are easy. Even if the positive possibilities materialize, they do not guarantee decarbonization and a just transition that is fast and effective enough to matter; to head off the worst of climate change.
What is clear, though, is that like Carney, climate scholars and activists may need to let the fiction of the global rules-based order go. It was not working either in addressing climate change or enhancing justice. Perhaps its disruption is an opportunity to build better foundations for a just and effective global response to climate change.

At the recent World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney proclaimed "a rupture" in the global "rules-based order" and a turn to great power rivalry.

Addressing climate change without the 'rules-based order'

Many of the world's top climate scientists are in Berkshire this week to take part in climate change research workshops.
The University of Reading is hosting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Met Office as they discuss climate action over the next decade.
Chair of the IPCC, Professor Sir Jim Skea said these workshops will provide "critical guidance for our leadership" and help assess "the ever-growing body of climate literature".
Minister for Climate, Katie White said the workshops demonstrate "the UK's scientific leadership in action as we tackle the climate challenge head-on."
Scientists at the workshop said extreme changes in weather patterns could become the norm and there was a general consensus that "climate change is here".
Last week the university said it had recorded the longest unbroken spell of rainy days in the town since they started measuring them in 1908.
Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre, Professor Rowan Sutton said: "We have experienced an incredibly wet period and of course we've seen a lot of flooding.
"It is part of a pattern, it's a long-term pattern."
He added: "We are seeing wetter winters, wetter autumns in the UK and this is entirely consistent with our expectations of how the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is changing our climate."
As part of the IPCC visit, a public lecture was held at the university. Reading was the birthplace of the climate stripes, a visual representation of what's been happening to the world.
Climate scientist at the university, Professor Ed Hawkins explained that his jacket represented the changing global temperatures from 1850 to 2025.
He said: "The left of the jacket is cold blues from the 1850s and changes to hot reds for 2025."
Vice-chair of IPCC's working group, Sherilee Harper said: "Now more than ever, people are feeling those impacts and they have lived experience of climate change."
"I think that lived experience of climate change translates into people looking for actions that they can do to be part of the climate change solution.
"Just as we all experience the weather, increasingly it seems climate change is not something that only impacts others."
More on this story
Related Links

Reading Uni hosts the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Met Office to discuss weather.

Expert scientists say climate change is here

By, South of England and Joe Campbell, BBC Berkshire
Published
Many of the world's top climate scientists are in Berkshire this week to take part in climate change research workshops.
The University of Reading is hosting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Met Office as they discuss climate action over the next decade.
Chair of the IPCC, Professor Sir Jim Skea said these workshops will provide "critical guidance for our leadership" and help assess "the ever-growing body of climate literature".
Minister for Climate, Katie White said the workshops demonstrate "the UK's scientific leadership in action as we tackle the climate challenge head-on."
Scientists at the workshop said extreme changes in weather patterns could become the norm and there was a general consensus that "climate change is here".
Last week the university said it had recorded the longest unbroken spell of rainy days in the town since they started measuring them in 1908.
Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre, Professor Rowan Sutton said: "We have experienced an incredibly wet period and of course we've seen a lot of flooding.
"It is part of a pattern, it's a long-term pattern."
He added: "We are seeing wetter winters, wetter autumns in the UK and this is entirely consistent with our expectations of how the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is changing our climate."
As part of the IPCC visit, a public lecture was held at the university. Reading was the birthplace of the climate stripes, external, a visual representation of what's been happening to the world.
Climate scientist at the university, Professor Ed Hawkins explained that his jacket represented the changing global temperatures from 1850 to 2025.
He said: "The left of the jacket is cold blues from the 1850s and changes to hot reds for 2025."
Vice-chair of IPCC's working group, Sherilee Harper said: "Now more than ever, people are feeling those impacts and they have lived experience of climate change."
"I think that lived experience of climate change translates into people looking for actions that they can do to be part of the climate change solution.

Many of the world's top climate scientists are in Berkshire this week to take part in climate change research workshops.
The University of Reading is hosting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Met Office as they discuss climate action over the next decade.
Chair of the IPCC, Professor Sir Jim Skea said these workshops will provide "critical guidance for our leadership" and help assess "the ever-growing body of climate literature".
Minister for Climate, Katie White said the workshops demonstrate "the UK's scientific leadership in action as we tackle the climate challenge head-on."
Scientists at the workshop said extreme changes in weather patterns could become the norm and there was a general consensus that "climate change is here".
Last week the university said it had recorded the longest unbroken spell of rainy days in the town since they started measuring them in 1908.
Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre, Professor Rowan Sutton said: "We have experienced an incredibly wet period and of course we've seen a lot of flooding.
"It is part of a pattern, it's a long-term pattern."
He added: "We are seeing wetter winters, wetter autumns in the UK and this is entirely consistent with our expectations of how the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is changing our climate."
As part of the IPCC visit, a public lecture was held at the university. Reading was the birthplace of the climate stripes, a visual representation of what's been happening to the world.
Climate scientist at the university, Professor Ed Hawkins explained that his jacket represented the changing global temperatures from 1850 to 2025.
He said: "The left of the jacket is cold blues from the 1850s and changes to hot reds for 2025."
Vice-chair of IPCC's working group, Sherilee Harper said: "Now more than ever, people are feeling those impacts and they have lived experience of climate change."
"I think that lived experience of climate change translates into people looking for actions that they can do to be part of the climate change solution.
"Just as we all experience the weather, increasingly it seems climate change is not something that only impacts others."

Scientists in Reading for workshops say climate change is here

11 February 2026
Young people with symptoms of depression are more pessimistic about climate change, making them more vulnerable to climate-related mental distress, new research from the University of Reading suggests.
The findings come as the University hosts the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for two international workshops on its Whiteknights campus this week, 10-12 February.
The study, which interviewed young people aged 18-25, found that while climate change is widely associated with distress, those experiencing depression reported greater hopelessness about the future.
The research, published in The Journal of Climate Change and Health , showed that young people think a balance of hope and fear in climate messaging is needed.
Professor Ciara McCabe, a psychologist and neuroscientist at the University of Reading who led the research, said: "Youth mental health is in crisis, and climate change may further increase the risk of anxiety and depression among young people.
'Our research shows that those already experiencing depression symptoms are particularly vulnerable to climate pessimism. Understanding how mental health shapes young people's responses to climate change is crucial for developing interventions that protect wellbeing as well as the planet." In-depth interviews
The research involved in-depth interviews revealing how young people understand climate change, ranging from weather changes to natural disasters. Those experiencing high depression symptoms reported more pessimism.
Professor Ed Hawkins, climate scientist at the University of Reading, who was a co-author of the study, said: 'Young people are acutely aware of the climate crisis. They emphasised that climate messaging needs a careful balance.
'Fear-based messaging alone can lead to helplessness, while hope without action creates complacency. Young people want honest communication acknowledging the severity of climate impacts, while also showing what they can do about it."
Study participants placed responsibility for action on climate change across society as a whole, from families and educators to businesses, governments and organisations, stressing the need for collaboration.
The University of Reading is committed to climate action through initiatives including the Climate Ambassadors programme and Global Sustainability Leaders Scholarships, which support the next generation of climate leaders.
---
The Academy of Medical Sciences press release labelling system:
M. Siyabend Kaya, Ed Hawkins and Ciara McCabe, Views on climate change, climate action and mental health, in young people with and without existing depression symptoms: A qualitative study, The Journal of Climate Change and Health (Volume 27, January–February 2026).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2025.100606

11 February 2026 Young people with symptoms of depression are more pessimistic about climate change, making them more vulnerable to climate-related mental distress, new research from the University of…

Climate change fuelling anxiety in depressed young people

Climate worry is associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms among Finns of all ages. However, these symptoms are less common among individuals whose climate-related hope is combined with various forms of action, such as volunteering, following a plant‑based diet or avoiding air travel. Hope that society is capable of mitigating climate change is also associated with fewer depressive and anxiety symptoms.
Conducted among more than 5,000 Finnish adults, the study examined the associations of climate worry, efficacy-based climate hope and climate action with mental health, namely depressive and anxiety symptoms.
Commitment to climate action, together with climate hope, can be a constructive way for individuals to channel their climate worry and climate anxiety. They can protect individuals' mental health and support their agency amid the climate crisis.
'For this reason, it is important for individuals to have more genuine opportunities to influence climate change mitigation. We need clear information about which climate actions are genuinely impactful and how different people can get involved,' says Veera Nieminen, a doctoral researcher at the University of Eastern Finland and the lead author of the study.
It is also essential that society as a whole commits to effective climate action. Such commitment supports not only efforts to mitigate climate change and safeguard planetary wellbeing but also individuals' mental health.
'Mitigating the climate crisis cannot be left to individuals. However, societal structures and reforms must be designed in a way that creates a solid foundation for meaningful action at the individual level.'
The climate crisis is also a mental health crisis. As climate change progresses, we need greater understanding of its impacts on mental health, and of ways to support mental health amid the climate crisis.
'Investing in climate agency and effective climate actions could simultaneously ease the mental health impacts of the climate crisis and strengthen the kind of behavioural commitment that societies in the global North will, in any case, need,' Nieminen concludes.
—
The Good Men Project is a mission-driven men's media platform. A major platform for stories about men, identity, fatherhood, and emotional intelligence—and a trusted home for the national conversation about masculinity.
The Good Men Project accepts paid guest posts and provides bulk guest post packages for SEO agencies and resellers.
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.

Can climate action reduce climate anxiety? New research links hope and action to fewer depressive symptoms during the climate crisis.

Climate-Related Depressive Symptoms May Be Alleviated Through Action and Hope – Hope in Society's Capacity to Act Also Plays a Part

The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called "a scam." But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
"It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing," said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
READ MORE: UN says world must jointly tackle issues of climate change, pollution, biodiversity and land loss
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on "Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 " in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related "as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas."
Research is booming on the topic
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
WATCH: Deep in the Amazon, scientists build a 'time capsule' to predict future of climate change
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
"Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true," said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: "It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam."
Experts strongly disagree.
"Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change."
READ MORE: Record-breaking heat wave in 2021 is an example of climate change's impact in North America
Patz and Frumkin both said the "vast majority" of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
WATCH: How the loss of USAID funding affects Indonesia's ability to fight climate change
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost "on the order of at least $10 billion."
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
"Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires," said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
READ MORE: Climate change harms daily life across the United States, new federal report finds
"We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health."
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much "due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths."
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, "total mortality rises rapidly."

The decision from the administration on Thursday reverses a 2009 finding that says warming endangers Americans' lives and health.

Trump calls climate change threat to public health "a scam" but scientific findings show otherwise

New research has found that we are more likely to back policies aimed at tackling climate change when we feel fearful, but feelings of dread make us less likely to support such policies.
Published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, the study is the first to investigate if incidental state emotions, referring to how people are feeling in that moment, can predict people's belief in climate change, their willingness to behave pro-environmentally, and to support policies to address climate change.
Led by a team of researchers from Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) in Cambridge, England, the study involved 418 UK participants who were assessed for 10 emotions including fear, anger, sadness, guilt, and dread.
The study also measured their belief in climate change and rated their support for a series of climate policies, including increasing taxes on airlines to offset carbon emissions, investing more in green jobs and businesses, and raising taxes on fossil fuels.
The results found that feeling fearful was associated with greater support for these climate policies, whereas feeling dread meant less support.
Dread is understood as an intense, overwhelming form of fear accompanied by a sense of inevitability, which the researchers suggest may leave individuals feeling powerless and less likely to believe that policies will be effective or worthwhile.
This fits with previous studies that have suggested an "inverted-U" relationship between fear intensity and behavioral change—experiencing manageable levels of fear is mobilizing, while too little fear fails to motivate and too much fear can cause us to disengage altogether.
The study also found that belief in climate change was already high among the UK participants. When asked to rate four statements including "human activities are causing climate change" and "climate change is a global emergency," participants scored an average of 339 out of 400, indicating broad public acceptance, although individual emotions did not predict participants' levels of belief.
However, the research did uncover gender differences, with female participants reporting both stronger climate change beliefs and greater support for climate policies than men.
Lead author Dr. Sarah Gradidge, Lecturer in Psychology at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU), said, "Much of the research so far has looked at emotional reactions to climate change itself, such as eco-anxiety.
Our study is the first to look at whether the everyday emotions people are feeling, whether they're thinking about climate change or not, influence people's belief in climate change and their willingness to support policies designed to address it.
"Despite being the most similar of the 10 emotions we tested, our results show a clear and important difference between fear and dread. Feeling fearful appears to motivate people and is linked with greater support for climate policies. However, dread, which can be thought of as a more intense, overwhelming form of fear, is associated with lower support for climate policies.
"Our findings suggest that any strategies aimed at building public support for climate policies may benefit from evoking manageable levels of fear, to encourage people to engage and support solutions. Going too far may leave people feeling powerless and therefore less inclined to back the policies being proposed."

New research has found that we are more likely to back policies aimed at tackling climate change when we feel fearful, but feelings of dread make us less likely to support such policies.

Fear or dread? How intensity of emotion may shape climate policy support

What a difference a single year makes. The once-dominant push to radically reshape society in hopes of averting climate catastrophe has collapsed. Look at Davos, the talkfest long dominated by climate advocacy. That consensus has been all but abandoned by its once strongest proponents.
Emblematic of the shift: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen didn't mention the climate transition even once in her 2026 Davos, Switzerland, talk after putting it front and center in preceding years.
But it's not just the Europeans. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney once called for"a global net zero commitment" to solve climate change, which he saw as "an existential threat." Now Carney admits that the "architecture of collective problem-solving" long supported by World Economic Forum elites - and including United Nations-organized climate change summits - has been "diminished." At home, he's pledging to make Canada into an "energy superpower."
In the U.S., Democratic politicians have stopped leading with climate change as a central issue, shifting focus to affordability, low energy prices and immediate economic relief instead. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist winner of last November's election, campaigned on rising grocery bills and housing costs, and barely discussed climate change.
This global shift is not all down to the election of President Donald Trump. Voters have become sick and tired of constant climate alarmism, meaning many climate advocacy voices like environmentalist and author Bill McKibben have had to dial back their rhetoric. Shouting about doomsday is failing to deliver political gains.
Other issues have become much more important to voters, and people are reading and watching climate change news less across the global north. The media itself has less to say: According to a Washington Post analysis, 2025 saw the fewest media mentions of climate change since it started keeping track in March 2022.
A Searchlight Institute poll highlighted that voters in battleground states are prioritizing pocketbook concerns over abstract environmental threats, with political strategists advising against talking about "climate change" altogether because "when leaders say the words 'climate change,' voters get bad vibes."
This course correction means that the media and leftwing politicians are catching up with the public, who say climate change ranks low even compared with other environmental concerns. A Pew Research Center global survey from August found that many high-income countries have seen a mass reduction in concerns around climate change as a major threat.
This recalibration even extends to advocacy groups and observers, who have retreated from confrontational doomerism.
This retreat is good for sensible policy, because the failed alarmist approach relied on a series of persistent misrepresentations. Take the claim that extreme weather events, because of climate change, have dramatically made us worse off. This is simply untrue.
Deaths from climate-related disasters including storms, floods, droughts and fires have declined sharply over the past century, with the last decade seeing some of the lowest numbers on record, despite global population quadrupling. In the 1920s, the global death toll was near half a million per year on average - last year it was less than ten thousand, a reduction of more than 97%.
This progress results from better warnings, stronger infrastructure, improved disaster response and overall societal wealth that enables such protections. Adaptation through innovation has proved far more effective than fear-driven restrictions.
Another big fib is the idea that China is rapidly going green. The reality is that China is massively reliant on fossil fuels just like everyone else. Half a century ago, China got 40% of its energy from renewables - when it relied on burning wood and dung because its people were poor. As Chinese people have since become massively wealthier, fossil fuels peaked at producing 92% of the country's energy in 2011 - and that figure has only ebbed slightly, to 87% in 2023, the last year for which there are data.
Ambitious commitments made at successive climate summits that would redirect enormous financial flows toward green projects in poor countries have proved illusory. Rich countries continuously failed to honor their $100-billion per-year climate finance promise and - to make matters worse - largely repackaged development aid that could otherwise have helped fight hunger and diseases
Activists and politicians demanded urgent, economy-wide transformations, insisting that only massive shifts could avert climate disaster. They mobilized calls for trillions to flow from taxpayers and conventional industries into renewables. Those grand visions have faltered, and private capital has been all but withdrawn amid high risks and uncertain returns. What was presented as an inevitable tidal wave of sustainable finance now appears more like a passing blip.
Europe provides the starkest warning of idealism clashing with reality. Germany's vaunted energy transition has been a textbook case of climate scares driving poor but immensely costly decisions. Now, Chancellor Friedrich Merz confesses that Germany has achieved "the most expensive energy transition in the entire world."
A large part of the cost comes from prematurely shutting down nuclear plants that were reliable, low-carbon and already fully paid for. Instead, German policymakers increased reliance on coal and gas drove up emissions and saw electricity prices skyrocket. Merz now admits "it was a serious strategic mistake to exit nuclear energy."
The transition from exaggeration to muted realism among the leaders at Davos is at least some progress. This reflects recognition that exaggerated fear tactics have led to public disconnection, bad policies and political backlash. Now we need to focus on what works. For now, we should deliver cheap, secure energy to boost prosperity while we innovate for a greener future.
This story was originally published

What a difference a single year makes. The once-dominant push to radically reshape society in hopes ...

Commentary: Why the global retreat from climate alarmism is a good thing

The 25th Winter Olympic Games Milano Cortina 2026 officially opened in Milan on Friday. Arthur Li and Carter Li, twin brothers studying at SZMS Nanshan Innovation School, participated in the Olympic torch relay in Milan, which heralded the start of the Winter Olympic Games. The participation made them the youngest Olympic torchbearers ever to represent Shenzhen.
The Winter Olympic Games Milano Cortina 2026 is committed to delivering the most environmentally sustainable Olympic Games in history, embedding the principles of sustainability into every aspect of the event. By making use of existing venues, cutting carbon emissions, and adopting a circular economy model, the event aims to minimize its environmental footprint.
The official torch for this Winter Olympic Games, named "­Essential," embodies the concept of sustainability. Crafted from recycled aluminum and brass, the torch runs on bio-LPG, which minimizes carbon emissions. Its design allows for repeat refueling, and it can be used up to 10 times.
Notably, 90 percent of the venues for the Winter Olympic Games Milano Cortina 2026 are pre-existing or temporary structures. The San Siro Stadium, the venue for the opening ceremony, has undergone only necessary upgrades, while venues for the Olympic Games in Cortina retain much of the legacy infrastructure from the Winter Olympic Games 1956.
Brothers Arthur Li and Carter Li, were selected for the torch relay in recognition of their participation in the 28th and 29th UN Climate Change Conferences, where they delivered keynote speeches. At COP28 in 2023, they presented research findings on how their peers perceive climate change and pledged to help their fellow students become fully climate-literate. At COP29 in 2024, the two ­brothers returned to report on their practical actions. Over the previous year, they had ­organized a variety of activities designed to spread knowledge about climate change among their classmates. They invited experts to speak at thematic sharing sessions and engage in face-to-face discussions with students; led their peers on field trips to zero-carbon communities, enabling them to experience firsthand the concepts of carbon neutrality and ­sustainable development; and designed a series of interactive climate quiz games, helping everyone learn about climate change in a fun and engaging way.
By taking part in the Olympic torch relay, the brothers hope to integrate their vision for climate action with the philosophy of the Green Olympics and make their voices heard on an even greater global stage. Their mission is to call on young people worldwide to pay attention to climate change and take concrete action. Climate change is not an abstract issue but a real one that is closely connected to the life of every individual. The brothers also hope that this Winter Olympic Games journey will allow them to learn from the practical, replicable climate initiatives implemented by local communities.
The Li brothers have loved animals since they were young. Growing up, they joined their parents in public welfare activities and gradually came to understand how climate change threatens countless species, driving many to endangerment or even the brink of extinction. Since the age of 12, the brothers have launched initiatives calling on young people to take active steps to mitigate the human impact on climate change.

The 25th Winter Olympic Games Milano Cortina 2026 officially opened in Milan on Friday. Arthur Li and Carter Li, twin brothers studying at SZMS Nanshan Innovation School, participated in the Olympic torch relay in Milan, which heralded the start of the Winter Olympic Games. The participation made them the youngest Olympic torchbearers ever to represent Shenzhen.

Twin brothers from Shenzhen participate in Winter Olympic flame relay as torchbearers

Eucalyptus trees, laden with flammable oils, could spread into Portugal's south-central region by 2060 if changing climate conditions make the area more hospitable to their growth, creating wildfire hotspots that would evade detection by conventional prevention approaches.
The gap exists because most wildfire models account for climate change but treat forests as static, missing how vegetation itself will evolve and alter fire risk.
New model linking climate and forests
A new study from NYU Tandon School of Engineering fills this gap by modeling both climate and vegetation changes together. Published in the International Journal of Wildland Fire, the research projects how forests will evolve through 2060 and reveals that ignoring vegetation dynamics produces fundamentally incomplete fire risk projections.
"If you only consider the impact of climate but ignore vegetation, you're going to miss wildfire patterns that will happen," said Augustin Guibaud, the NYU Tandon assistant professor who led the research team. "Vegetation works on a timescale that's different from climate or weather."
Portugal's surprising future fire risks
Testing the model in Portugal revealed a striking paradox: local fire risk doesn't always track with global warming trends. Some higher-emission scenarios actually showed decreased fire risk in Portugal, with medium emissions projecting a 12% decrease when vegetation responses were included. In the low-emission scenario, projections without vegetation changes predicted a 59% increase in burned area by 2060, but including how forests would actually adapt reduced that to just 3%.
"The climate scenario which is more drastic from a temperature perspective may not be the one associated with highest risk at the local level," Guibaud explained. The counterintuitive results underscore that local climate conditions and vegetation responses can diverge significantly from global patterns.
Global relevance and policy implications
The findings matter beyond Portugal. Wildfires are increasing in frequency, intensity and geographic scope across Mediterranean climates and western North America, with regions like California experiencing recurring large fires. Climate projections indicate these trends will continue, making long-term planning increasingly important. Guibaud anticipates working with federal agencies to apply the methodology in the United States, where the same dynamics of shifting vegetation and fire risk are playing out.
The team developed their approach using machine learning to analyze Portugal's wildfire patterns, correctly identifying 84% of historical wildfire locations in validation tests. They modeled how wildfires would change under three climate futures through 2060—from low to high emissions—incorporating how seven dominant ecosystems characterized by the tree species would shift in response to changing temperature and precipitation.
How the model works in practice
The model has immediate practical implications. Planting strategies aimed at reducing wildfire risk can backfire if they don't account for future climate. Species that won't survive future conditions waste resources, while fire-prone species that will thrive "lock in elevated risk for decades," Guibaud said. Because forest ecosystems take about a century to fully restore, those mistakes reverberate for generations.
The team's model integrates data from NASA satellite systems, Portugal's National Forest Inventory, and IPCC climate projections, using Maximum Entropy modeling to project species shifts and a Graph Convolutional Network to assess fire risk based on surrounding vegetation and terrain. The researchers developed a method to decouple climate and vegetation effects by running projections twice: once holding vegetation constant and once allowing it to evolve.
The team plans to refine the vegetation modeling to include shrubs and grasses, not just tree species.

Eucalyptus trees, laden with flammable oils, could spread into Portugal's south-central region by 2060 if changing climate conditions make the area more hospitable to their growth, creating wildfire hotspots that would evade detection by conventional prevention approaches.

Wildfire prevention models miss key factor: How forests will change over decades

Federal Minister for Climate Change and Environmental Coordination Dr Musadik Malik on Friday emphasised the pivotal role of public-private collaboration in addressing Pakistan's climate challenges while attending the launch ceremony of the Climate Finance Accelerator (CFA) Pakistan in Islamabad.Speaking to an audience of government officials, private sector leaders, and development partners, Dr. Malik underscored the urgency of mobilizing investment and implementing innovative, bankable solutions to accelerate the country's transition toward low-carbon and climate-resilient development.
Federal Minister for Climate Change and Environmental Coordination Dr Musadik Malik on Friday emphasised the pivotal role of public-private collaboration in addressing Pakistan's climate challenges while attending the launch ceremony of the Climate Finance Accelerator (CFA) Pakistan in Islamabad.
Speaking to an audience of government officials, private sector leaders, and development partners, Dr. Malik underscored the urgency of mobilizing investment and implementing innovative, bankable solutions to accelerate the country's transition toward low-carbon and climate-resilient development.

Minister calls for unlocking climate investment

FILE - The Gen. James Gavin Power Plant, a coal-fired power plant, operates April 14, 2025, in Cheshire, Ohio.
Joshua A. Bickel/AP
President Donald Trump speaks during an event with Environmental Protection Agency director Lee Zeldin to announce the EPA will no longer regulate greenhouse gases, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Thursday, Feb. 12, 2026, in Washington.
Evan Vucci/AP
FILE - A pumpjack is visible before sunrise Feb. 26, 2025, in Kermit, Texas.
Julio Cortez/AP
FILE Joe Chyuwei, right, Addison Black, front center, James Black, front left, and back row from left, Helen Chyuwei, Jameson Black, Grace Chyuwei and Grayson Black watch the sunset in the heat at Zabriskie Point, Aug. 3, 2025, in Death Valley National Park, Calif.
John Locher/AP
FILE - The Shell Norco oil refinery operates in Norco, La., April 7, 2025.
Gerald Herbert/AP
FILE - Traffic moves along Interstate 76 ahead of the Memorial Day holiday weekend, in Philadelphia, May 22, 2025.
Matt Rourke/AP
The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
SF Gate Logo
Don't let Google decide who you trust.
Make SFGATE a preferred source so your search results prioritize writing by actual people, not AI.
Add Preferred Source
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
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.

The Trump administration has revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say...

Scientific studies calculate climate change as health danger, while Trump calls it a 'scam'

Pakistan is among the countries least responsible for global carbon emissions, yet it remains one of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. From record-breaking heatwaves and water shortages to devastating floods that displace millions, climate change is no longer a distant danger; it is a daily reality.
Recent floods exposed not only environmental fragility but also weak governance and poor planning. Despite repeated warnings from scientists and environmental experts, preventive measures are largely limited to speeches and short-term relief efforts. Tree plantation drives, while important, cannot substitute for long-term climate adaptation policies, urban planning reforms, and strict enforcement of environmental laws.
Climate change is not merely an environmental issue. It is directly linked to food insecurity, unemployment, public health, and forced migration. Farmers are struggling with unpredictable weather patterns, cities are becoming increasingly unlivable due to extreme heat, and the poorest communities continue to suffer the most. Unfortunately, climate policy rarely receives priority in national decision-making.
Pakistan urgently needs serious investment in climate-resilient infrastructure, renewable energy, water conservation systems, and grassroots-level public awareness. Educational institutions must integrate climate education, while industries must be held accountable for environmental damage.
If immediate and sincere action is not taken, climate disasters will continue to wipe out years of development in a matter of days. Climate change is not a political slogan; it is a national emergency. The cost of inaction will far exceed the cost of prevention.
SHAHZADI,
Lahore.

Pakistan is among the countries least responsible for global carbon emissions, yet it remains one of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. From

Climate Change: A Threat

Trump Climate Science
The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' The Environmental Protection…

An Arctic air mass has plunged across North America and parts of Europe, driving temperatures far below freezing and straining power grids, transport systems, and emergency services. The shock of this icy blast is colliding with a longer story of planetary warming, forcing a fresh look at how a hotter world can still deliver brutal cold. I see this winter's extremes less as a contradiction and more as a stress test of how well we understand climate change's fingerprints on day‑to‑day weather.
Scientists have warned for years that rising greenhouse gases would not simply raise the global thermostat in a straight line, but would also disrupt the patterns that move heat and cold around the planet. The latest cold outbreak is sharpening that warning, from the rapidly changing Arctic to the way societies and economies absorb climate shocks, and it is exposing gaps in both our science and our preparedness.
The starting point for this winter's drama is the far north, where sea ice is retreating and temperatures are climbing faster than the global average. Researchers tracking the Arctic report that The Arctic has just logged its warmest year on record, continuing to warm more quickly than the rest of the planet and eroding the temperature contrast that helps stabilize winter weather. Shrinking sea ice is not just a symbolic loss, it changes how heat and moisture flow from the ocean to the atmosphere, and that in turn can warp the jet stream that usually corrals polar air near the pole.
As far back as Jan, forecasters were already flagging how Shrinking sea ice in the Arctic could worsen extreme winter weather in the United States and Eastern Europe by nudging that jet stream into more meandering shapes. Meteorologists now say They are seeing Arctic conditions deteriorate in ways that Long term satellite records have never captured before, with Answer 1 from one expert stressing that They are leaning on data, not drama, as they warn that the odds of similar disruptions will not be cut in the coming years. That evolving Arctic backdrop is the quiet engine behind the noisy headlines about frozen highways and record wind chills.
To most people, the polar vortex was an obscure technical term until it started showing up in weather alerts and social media memes. In reality it is a band of strong winds high above the pole that usually keeps frigid air bottled up, and when it weakens or splits, that cold can spill south in spectacular fashion. Scientists are now watching a rare early‑season stratospheric warming event that, according to one FAQ, fits the classic definition of a sudden stratospheric warming, a rapid temperature jump in the winter stratosphere that can scramble the vortex and reshape winter forecasts for weeks.
In a separate analysis, another Feb report describes how that kind of disruption can create a jarring disconnect between what the data shows and what people feel on their skin, noting that Climate change already makes That gap between what the data is whispering and what the air is telling your face unsettling. Most climate scientists now argue that global warming is altering the behavior of the polar vortex itself, with Most agreeing that climate change is influencing the jet stream and the waves that pull cold air south, even as they continue to debate the exact mechanisms.
Even as thermometers plunge, the broader climate baseline has shifted toward warmth, which changes how we experience each cold snap. Over the first quarter of this century, average temperatures have climbed enough that winters globally are now on average 1.1 degrees Yet Fahrenheit, or 0.6 degrees Celsius, warmer than 25 years ago, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data. That means what used to be a typical winter now feels like an outlier, and when a truly sharp cold spell arrives, it collides with our new expectations of milder seasons.
Psychologists and climate communicators point out that this shift in expectations is part of why the current cold snap feels so punishing. One recent analysis of How climate change and human psychology interact notes that as we get used to warmer conditions, our sense of what counts as 'normal' weather drifts, making each blast of Arctic air feel like a bigger shock. That perception gap matters for policy, because it can either spur support for climate action or fuel confusion and denial when people see snowdrifts and assume global warming has been exaggerated.
The latest cold wave is not just a meteorological event, it is a stress test for infrastructure and security systems built for a more stable climate. An unusually brutal winter storm is now forecast to pummel more than 160 m Americans across America, threatening highways, airports, and energy systems that are already grappling with heat waves and floods in other seasons. In the control rooms where these risks are monitored, There is little theatrics, with one forecaster captured quietly warning a colleague that 'If this verifies, we are in trouble,' a sober assessment of how quickly conditions could turn extreme based on the latest polar vortex forecast.
Beyond immediate outages and accidents, strategists are starting to fold these climate‑driven extremes into their thinking about conflict and national security. Analyst Lewis points out that climate change will affect military operations themselves, with more extreme weather events and melting Arctic ice opening new routes and flashpoints that armed forces must navigate. In the civilian economy, business leaders are being warned that the Physicalrisks of Physicalrisks of climate change are already disrupting operations and value chains, particularly in utilities and infrastructure, and that the current warming trajectory will only escalate those shocks unless resilience planning accelerates.
Behind every forecast map and emergency alert is a web of scientific institutions racing to keep pace with a changing climate. Global assessments from the IPCC have long warned that unchecked emissions could push Global temperatures up by as much as 6C, a worst‑case path that Scientists linked to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) flagged as a dire scenario for weather extremes. National agencies are trying to translate that big‑picture risk into day‑to‑day guidance, with one Arctic research program calling for a Grand Science Challenge to expand observations and improve forecasts that link melting Arctic conditions to severe weather and long‑term environmental change in the mid‑latitudes.
Yet the science itself is vulnerable to political shocks. During a recent government shutdown, climate researchers warned that While NOAA, formally the While NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric agency, managed to publish its Global Mean Surface Temperature report on time, other projects tied to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fell behind. That kind of disruption ripples outward, from Olympic organizers who now rely on climate briefings about snow reliability, as highlighted in a Jan United States and focused press event, to grid operators who depend on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and However NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric ) data to anticipate how storms and even auroras will affect solar generation.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.

Icy blast sparks new questions about climate change's impact

The Trump administration on Thursday 12 February revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam'. But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths – thousands every year – in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' says Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Heat-related deaths have more than doubled in the past 25 years
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the US, 1999-2023' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries – including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2 per cent of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas'.
Related
Research is booming on the health harms of climate change
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60 per cent of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' says Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-caused climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed [more tha] 600 people in the Northwest,'' says Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both say the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
Studies look at more than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Related
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths – heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria – and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life – $11.5 million in 2014 dollars (€9.7m) – and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion' (€8.4b).
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin says.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' says Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 1.5 degrees Celsius from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths'.
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly".

As the US rolls back the endangerment finding, what impact could it have on citizens' health?View on euronews

‘Akin to flat Earth or denying gravity': Experts weigh in on Trump repeal of key climate finding

Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb has stressed the need for strong collaboration between the public and private sectors to effectively address the challenges posed by climate change.Virtually addressing the Pakistan Climate Conference, he said climate change remains a pressing and critical issue for Pakistan, requiring coordinated and sustained efforts from all stakeholders.The finance minister also expressed gratitude to the Overseas Chamber for organizing the conference, terming it an important platform for dialogue and collective action on climate-related challenges.
Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb has stressed the need for strong collaboration between the public and private sectors to effectively address the challenges posed by climate change.
Virtually addressing the Pakistan Climate Conference, he said climate change remains a pressing and critical issue for Pakistan, requiring coordinated and sustained efforts from all stakeholders.
The finance minister also expressed gratitude to the Overseas Chamber for organizing the conference, terming it an important platform for dialogue and collective action on climate-related challenges.

Public-private collaboration key to tackling climate change: Aurangzeb

Active Citizens, Aid, Asia-Pacific, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, Environment, Food and Agriculture, Headlines, Migration & Refugees, Ocean Health, TerraViva United Nations, Water & Sanitation
Opinion
Credit: Port Vila Market, Vanuatu – Kevin Hellon / shutterstock.com
-
The Pacific Island countries are at the frontline of climate change. Their territories mostly consist of small, low-lying islands, with long coastlines and vast ocean spaces between them. Many livelihoods are based on agriculture or fishing, and importing water or food is often infeasible or expensive. This makes those large ocean nations highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as storms, droughts, and rising sea levels. Analysts have expressed concerns that this can result in various forms of socio-political conflict.
However, the Pacific Island countries have received scarce attention in research on climate change and conflict. This is surprising given the Pacific Island countries' high climate vulnerability and increasing geopolitical relevance. A few years back, a Nature article did not find a single peer-reviewed study on the climate-conflict nexus in the Pacific. And while recent work added important insights on potential pathways between climate and conflict in the Pacific Island countries, the region remains understudied.
A new study tackles this knowledge gap by systematically collecting data on conflict events (such as protests, riots, and communal violence) in Fiji, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. It then determines statistical associations between the occurrence of such conflicts—protests, riots, communal violence etc.—and climate extremes like storms, heatwaves, and floods. The results are surprising.
Climate extremes do not drive conflict risks
The researchers found that climate disasters are not a significant predictor of conflict events. This is true for both cities and rural areas. In cities, high values of (and competition for) land, immigration after disasters, and opportunities for political mobilisation have long been considered to make climate-related conflicts more likely, yet no such statistical signal was detected. Even when looking only at conflicts around natural resources like water or forests, climate extremes are not a good predictor.
These findings could nuance common wisdom about climate change and conflict. Experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that climate change increases conflict risks, even though other conflict drivers are more important. Such a linkage is particularly likely in climate vulnerable regions with a history of political instability, and it is also more applicable to low-intensity conflicts like protests (as compared to large-scale violence like civil wars). Yet, the study focuses on such smaller-scale conflict. Fiji, Solomon Island, and Vanuatu are also highly vulnerable to climate change and suffered through political instability (coups, civil war, and unrest) in the past.
How to make sense of the absence of conflict
As a starting point, it is important to clarify three things. First, the absence of conflict does not necessarily imply peace, particularly if those least responsible for climate change suffer most from its consequences. Second, the study focuses on visible and collective forms of conflict. Disasters, but also competition for disaster-related support schemes, might well result in lower-level, less visible forms of conflict, such as household and intimate partner violence or lower social cohesion within communities. Studying these forms of conflict is certainly a key task for future work. Third, evidence is not perfect. The new study, for instance, covers only the period 2012 to 2020, studies just three Pacific Island countries, and could not include rainfall anomalies due to a lack of data.
That said, the absence of a correlation between climate extremes and socio-political conflict events is still noteworthy. It indicates the Pacific Islands have significant levels of agency and resilience. This is not to romanticise local communities and national governments—as everywhere in the world, they have their share of tensions and shortcomings. But the Pacific Island countries possess well-established traditional institutions and, at least in some areas, strong community and civil society networks. Given their remote location, tropical climate, and oceanic geography, they have plenty of knowledge and experience in dealing with climate extremes like droughts, floods, and storms as well. These are important assets for coping peacefully with the impacts of climate change.
Consider the example of Vanuatu after cyclone Pam in 2015. Despite being one of the most intense storms to ever hit the South Pacific, the death toll was relatively low, and the country recovered rather quickly from its impacts. This was the case because local community structures and NGO-led Community Climate Change Committees coordinated well, and they thus played a key role in preparing for the storm and in delivering disaster relief and recovery. These activities did not just utilise but also strengthened traditional social networks. Furthermore, state institutions effectively utilised the inflow of international aid to deal with the cyclone's impacts, thereby increasing trust in the government. Consequentially, no major conflicts erupted in the aftermath of Pam.
Avoid doomsday thinking – and provide tailored support
Which insights can decision makers draw from these findings?
It is important to avoid doomsday scenarios when thinking about climate change in the Pacific. For sure, the respective countries are highly exposed to and quite vulnerable to climate change. But if policy makers and media portray the Pacific Island countries as helpless victims of climate change and prone to conflict, the consequences are problematic: a lack of economic investment, external support mostly focussed on relocation, and an ignorance of local capacities.
By contrast, emphasising how Pacific communities successfully deal with and maintain peace in the context of climate change provides different perspectives. It highlights how local communities and state institutions (despite not being perfect) have significant capacities for climate change adaptation and bottom-up peacebuilding. National governments and international donors should utilise those capacities by providing tailored support, responding to the needs and priorities of those on the frontline of climate change. Rather than preliminary resignation or relocation, this can support the building of climate-resilient peace.
Related articles:
There Is No Security Without Development, Anything Else Is a Distraction
Do We Need a Pacific Peace Index?
The Trump Presidency and Climate Security in the Indo-Pacific Region
Tobias Ide is Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at Murdoch University Perth. Until recently, he was also Adjunct Associate Professor of International Relations at the Brunswick University of Technology. He has published widely on the intersections of the environment, climate change, peace, conflict and security, including in Global Environmental Change, International Affairs, Journal of Peace Research, Nature Climate Change, and World Development. He is also a director of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association.
This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.
IPS UN Bureau

The Pacific Island countries are at the frontline of climate change. Their territories mostly consist of small, low-lying islands, with long coastlines and vast ocean spaces between them. Many…

Local Resilience Can Mitigate Climate Conflicts in the Pacific

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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.

The Trump administration has revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.'

Scientific Studies Calculate Climate Change as Health Danger, While Trump Calls It a 'Scam'

AP Science Writer (AP) — The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___

Some of the most important players in Earth's climate system are nearly invisible. Calcifying plankton, microscopic organisms that form hard shells, help regulate the planet's temperature by capturing carbon and moving it through the ocean. A new review published in
Science
finds that these organisms are not fully represented in the climate models used to predict Earth's future. The research was led by an international team from the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) (Spain).
The study focuses on three major groups of calcifying plankton: coccolithophores, foraminifers, and pteropods. According to the authors, climate models often simplify or exclude these organisms, which can lead to an incomplete picture of how the ocean responds to climate change.
How Calcifying Plankton Shape the Carbon Cycle
When climate models leave out calcifying plankton, they may miss key steps in the global carbon cycle. These organisms build tiny shells made of calcium carbonate (CaCO
3
), a substance that plays a central role in ocean chemistry. As plankton grow and die, they help move carbon from the atmosphere into deeper layers of the ocean.
This process, known as the ocean carbon pump, helps stabilize Earth's climate over long periods of time. It also affects seawater chemistry and contributes to the formation of sediments that scientists use to study past climates.
"Plankton shells are tiny, but together they shape the chemistry of our oceans and the climate of our planet," said Patrizia Ziveri, ICREA research professor at ICTA-UAB and lead author of the study. "By leaving them out of climate models, we risk overlooking fundamental processes that determine how the Earth system responds to climate change."
The Missing Process of Shallow Dissolution
The researchers point out that much of the calcium carbonate produced by plankton does not sink all the way to the ocean floor. Instead, a significant portion dissolves in the upper ocean, a process known as "shallow dissolution." This breakdown is driven by biological activity, including predation, clumping of particles, and microbial respiration.
Shallow dissolution changes ocean chemistry in important ways, yet it is largely missing from major Earth System Models (e.g. CMIP6) used in global climate assessments. Without accounting for this process, models may misjudge how carbon moves through the ocean and how the system responds to environmental stress.
Different Plankton Face Different Climate Threats
The study also emphasizes that not all calcifying plankton behave the same way. Each group has unique characteristics that influence where it lives, how it functions in marine ecosystems, and how vulnerable it is to climate change.
Coccolithophores are the largest producers of CaCO
3
, but they are especially sensitive to ocean acidification because they lack specialized mechanisms to remove excess acidity from their cells. Foraminifers and pteropods do have such mechanisms, but they face other risks, including declining oxygen levels and rising ocean temperatures. Together, these organisms determine how carbon is stored and recycled in the ocean, and treating them as a single group can oversimplify the ocean's response to climate pressures.
Improving Climate Models With Better Ocean Biology
The authors call for urgent efforts to measure how much calcium carbonate each plankton group produces, dissolves, and exports to deeper waters. They argue that incorporating these details into climate models would improve predictions of ocean and atmosphere interactions, long-term carbon storage, and the interpretation of sediment records used to reconstruct Earth's climate history.
"If we ignore the ocean's smallest organisms, we might miss important climate dynamics," says Dr. Ziveri. "Integrating calcifying plankton into climate models could offer sharper predictions and deeper insights into how ecosystems and societies may be affected."
The researchers conclude that closing these knowledge gaps is essential for building the next generation of climate models, ones that more accurately reflect the biological complexity of the oceans.

Tiny marine plankton that build calcium carbonate shells play an outsized role in regulating Earth's climate, quietly pulling carbon from the atmosphere and helping lock it away in the deep ocean. New research shows these microscopic engineers are largely missing from the climate models used to forecast our planet's future, meaning scientists may be underestimating how the ocean responds to climate change.

Scientists warn climate models are missing a key ocean player

With an unprecedented amount of information—and misinformation—about the climate crisis in the public domain, professionals from a wide range of backgrounds need to know how to harness today's powerful digital tools to develop effective communications strategies.
​​Strategic Climate Change Communication Certificate Program
A 14-week online certificate program for working professionals.
A new online certificate program launched by the Yale School of the Environment will equip climate change communicators with skills to navigate this rapidly evolving media landscape. The 14-week program, developed by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC), reflects the changing nature of climate communication.
'We have tools at our disposal to communicate at a speed and scale that is just unprecedented, and we're operating in an environment where communication itself is ever more critical,' said program instructor Anthony Leiserowitz, the JoshAni-TomKat Professor of Climate Change Communication and director of YPCCC.
The Strategic Climate Change Communication Certificate Program builds on a course Leiserowitz taught that emphasized the need to develop communications at the very start of an initiative.
'A lot of times, communicators are struggling with questions of tactics about getting a message out, such as what word should I use? Should I call it climate change or global warming? Do we need to create a TikTok channel? But effective communication starts with clarity about goals, audiences, credibility, and context. Comms needs to be in the C-suite, in the process right from the very beginning. Tactics should then flow from your goals and objectives and your larger strategy,' Leiserowitz said.
The public is increasingly engaging with climate issues. Over the past decade, the proportion of Americans who identify as 'Alarmed' about climate change has grown more than any other audience, from 15% in 2014 to almost 26% in 2024, YPCCC's 'Global Warming's Six Americas' research revealed.
'There are far more Americans who are alarmed about climate change today than there was 15 years ago. Globally, there is far more engagement at every level, from citizens to communities, to companies to governments. It is a top issue the world continues to focus on,' Leiserowitz noted.
The course is co-taught by Marija Verner, quantitative research specialist at YSE who studies how people around the world understand, experience and respond to climate change.
'The course curriculum draws directly from over two decades of YPCCC research on what motivates people to engage with climate change,' Verner said 'We know from our studies that understanding audience beliefs and values leads to crafting effective strategies.'
Participants will learn about audience climate change beliefs, values and motivations; design emotionally resonant messages grounded in narratives; detect and counter disinformation; and evaluate communications impacts using clear metrics. The course also will examine emerging technologies—such as AI and satellite data for tracking carbon and methane emissions globally—that can both advance and hinder climate communication.
'These technologies are radically changing what we know about the world and fundamentally altering who has access to information,' Leiserowitz noted.
The course runs from May-August and provides 4-5 hours of instruction each week including interactive discussions with faculty and researchers, peer-to-peer exchanges, and on-demand video lectures. Participants will apply the concepts they learn in the weekly sessions to build a communications plan they can put into effect immediately.
'Today's information environment is more fragmented and chaotic than ever before. That's precisely why communicators need rigorous, research-backed strategies rather than intuition alone. Our program gives participants the tools to cut through the noise,' Verner said.

The new online program offered by the Yale School of the Environment prepares climate leaders to navigate the rapidly evolving media landscape.

Yale Launches Certificate in Strategic Climate Communication

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies…

Scientific Studies Calculate Climate Change as Health Danger, While Trump Calls It a ‘Scam'

As Kenya inches closer to another election cycle, political manifestos will soon flood the public space, heavy with promises on jobs, food security, water, roads, housing, and economic growth.
The language will be polished, the slogans catchy, and the ambitions grand. However, any manifesto that fails to confront climate change head-on is not just incomplete, it is empty rhetoric.
Climate change is no longer a distant environmental concern reserved for scientists and activists. It is the underlying force shaping nearly every crisis politicians claim they will fix.
Droughts are no longer episodic shocks but recurring economic disruptions. Floods are no longer rare disasters but annual budget-breaking events.
Crop failures, rising food prices, water scarcity, collapsing fisheries, and damaged infrastructure all have one common denominator: a changing climate.
When politicians speak about food security without addressing climate-resilient agriculture, they are avoiding the root cause. When they promise roads and housing without talking about flood risk, drainage, land use planning, and resilient design, they are planning failures.
When they talk about jobs and industrial growth without acknowledging climate risks and green opportunities, they are anchoring the economy to a past that is fast disappearing.
Climate change is not a sector but a systems issue that cuts across agriculture, energy, transport, health, housing, security, and public finance. A manifesto that treats climate as a footnote, or worse, ignores it altogether, is essentially a list of intentions detached from reality.
Climate inaction is already costing Kenya dearly. Public funds meant for development are routinely diverted to disaster response and repairs.
Households absorb the shock through lost livelihoods, higher food prices, and rising energy costs. Businesses face supply disruptions and increased risk. Ignoring climate change is not a neutral political choice but an expensive one.
A serious manifesto in 2026 must treat climate action not as a standalone sector, but as the organising principle of development.
Water policy must be a climate-resilient water policy, focused on catchment protection, groundwater governance, and nature-based solutions.
Food security must mean climate-smart agriculture, investing in drought-tolerant crops, soil restoration, and farmer-led adaptation. Infrastructure must be designed for a warmer, wetter, and more volatile future, or it will fail expensively and repeatedly.
Voters should, therefore, be more demanding. It is no longer enough for aspirants to say they will deliver development. They must explain how they will deliver it in a climate-stressed world, showing how their policies reduce climate risks, protect livelihoods, and position the economy for the future.
In the end, a manifesto that ignores climate change is not visionary. It is evasive. It speaks loudly about symptoms while remaining silent on causes.
The public should read manifestos with one critical question in mind: Does this political vision recognise climate change as the defining challenge and opportunity of our time?
The writer is a climate action enthusiast and a communications specialist at Windward Communications Consultancy.

As Kenya nears elections, the real test for manifestos is whether they confront climate change as the root of economic and social challenges.

Why political manifesto without climate change is empty rhetoric

By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'

Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths in a warming world.

Scientific studies calculate climate change as health danger, while Trump calls it a ‘scam'

The Trump administration has revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.'
Scientific studies calculate climate change as health danger, while Trump calls it a 'scam'By SETH BORENSTEINAP Science WriterThe Associated Press
The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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.

The Trump administration has revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump

What a difference a single year makes. The once-dominant push to radically reshape society in hopes of averting climate catastrophe has collapsed. Look at Davos, the talkfest long dominated by climate advocacy. That consensus has been all but abandoned by its once strongest proponents.
Emblematic of the shift: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen didn't mention the climate transition even once in her 2026 Davos, Switzerland, talk after putting it front and center in preceding years.
But it's not just the Europeans. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney once called for"a global net zero commitment" to solve climate change, which he saw as "an existential threat." Now Carney admits that the "architecture of collective problem-solving" long supported by World Economic Forum elites - and including United Nations-organized climate change summits - has been "diminished." At home, he's pledging to make Canada into an "energy superpower."
In the U.S., Democratic politicians have stopped leading with climate change as a central issue, shifting focus to affordability, low energy prices and immediate economic relief instead. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist winner of last November's election, campaigned on rising grocery bills and housing costs, and barely discussed climate change.
This global shift is not all down to the election of President Donald Trump. Voters have become sick and tired of constant climate alarmism, meaning many climate advocacy voices like environmentalist and author Bill McKibben have had to dial back their rhetoric. Shouting about doomsday is failing to deliver political gains.
Other issues have become much more important to voters, and people are reading and watching climate change news less across the global north. The media itself has less to say: According to a Washington Post analysis, 2025 saw the fewest media mentions of climate change since it started keeping track in March 2022.
A Searchlight Institute poll highlighted that voters in battleground states are prioritizing pocketbook concerns over abstract environmental threats, with political strategists advising against talking about "climate change" altogether because "when leaders say the words 'climate change,' voters get bad vibes."
This course correction means that the media and leftwing politicians are catching up with the public, who say climate change ranks low even compared with other environmental concerns. A Pew Research Center global survey from August found that many high-income countries have seen a mass reduction in concerns around climate change as a major threat.
This recalibration even extends to advocacy groups and observers, who have retreated from confrontational doomerism.
This retreat is good for sensible policy, because the failed alarmist approach relied on a series of persistent misrepresentations. Take the claim that extreme weather events, because of climate change, have dramatically made us worse off. This is simply untrue.
Deaths from climate-related disasters including storms, floods, droughts and fires have declined sharply over the past century, with the last decade seeing some of the lowest numbers on record, despite global population quadrupling. In the 1920s, the global death toll was near half a million per year on average - last year it was less than ten thousand, a reduction of more than 97%.
This progress results from better warnings, stronger infrastructure, improved disaster response and overall societal wealth that enables such protections. Adaptation through innovation has proved far more effective than fear-driven restrictions.
Another big fib is the idea that China is rapidly going green. The reality is that China is massively reliant on fossil fuels just like everyone else. Half a century ago, China got 40% of its energy from renewables - when it relied on burning wood and dung because its people were poor. As Chinese people have since become massively wealthier, fossil fuels peaked at producing 92% of the country's energy in 2011 - and that figure has only ebbed slightly, to 87% in 2023, the last year for which there are data.
Ambitious commitments made at successive climate summits that would redirect enormous financial flows toward green projects in poor countries have proved illusory. Rich countries continuously failed to honor their $100-billion per-year climate finance promise and - to make matters worse - largely repackaged development aid that could otherwise have helped fight hunger and diseases
Activists and politicians demanded urgent, economy-wide transformations, insisting that only massive shifts could avert climate disaster. They mobilized calls for trillions to flow from taxpayers and conventional industries into renewables. Those grand visions have faltered, and private capital has been all but withdrawn amid high risks and uncertain returns. What was presented as an inevitable tidal wave of sustainable finance now appears more like a passing blip.
Europe provides the starkest warning of idealism clashing with reality. Germany's vaunted energy transition has been a textbook case of climate scares driving poor but immensely costly decisions. Now, Chancellor Friedrich Merz confesses that Germany has achieved "the most expensive energy transition in the entire world."
A large part of the cost comes from prematurely shutting down nuclear plants that were reliable, low-carbon and already fully paid for. Instead, German policymakers increased reliance on coal and gas drove up emissions and saw electricity prices skyrocket. Merz now admits "it was a serious strategic mistake to exit nuclear energy."
The transition from exaggeration to muted realism among the leaders at Davos is at least some progress. This reflects recognition that exaggerated fear tactics have led to public disconnection, bad policies and political backlash. Now we need to focus on what works. For now, we should deliver cheap, secure energy to boost prosperity while we innovate for a greener future.

The Trump administration on Thursday 12 February revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam'. But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths – thousands every year – in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' says Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Heat-related deaths have more than doubled in the past 25 years
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the US, 1999-2023' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries – including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2 per cent of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas'.
Research is booming on the health harms of climate change
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60 per cent of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' says Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-caused climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed [more tha] 600 people in the Northwest,'' says Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both say the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
Studies look at more than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths – heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria – and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life – $11.5 million in 2014 dollars (€9.7m) – and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion' (€8.4b).
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin says.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' says Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 1.5 degrees Celsius from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths'.
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly".

As the US rolls back the endangerment finding, what impact could it have on citizens' health?

Studies show health dangers of climate change. Trump calls it a 'scam'

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming .
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database . More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change .
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea , mental health issues and even nutrition problems , Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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 .

) The Country Climate and Development Report provides analysis and recommendations on how Laos can achieve sustained development while responding to climate change. Climate change, through rising temperatures and increased natural disasters, is adding to Laos' economic and development challenges. Lowering vulnerability

) The Country Climate and Development Report provides analysis and recommendations on how Laos can achieve sustained development while responding to climate change. Climate change, through rising…

Lao PDR Country Climate and Development Report (World Bank Group)

The Ulster Farmers' Union said the Commission "must confront the hard reality facing farmers", adding that agriculture-specific targets are "simply unachievable".
Deputy president John McClenaghan said the UFU supported the establishment of the JTC, but its success would depend on whether it would "deal honestly with what is achievable" on farms.
"Agriculture faces unique and unavoidable biological constraints, and climate targets that ignore these realities are neither fair nor credible."
Agriculture is the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases in Northern Ireland.
The independent Climate Change Committee, which advises the UK government on climate change, has recommended a shift to low-carbon farming to meet emission reduction targets.
Work is underway to try to reduce emissions through making production more efficient, improving soil quality and looking at feed additives to cut the amount of methane produced by livestock.
McClenaghan said agriculture was prepared to play its part in tackling climate change.
"But it must be evidence-based, proportionate and achievable.
"The current legislative framework does not yet strike that balance.
"It is essential that the Commission recognises these shortcomings and works to ensure that farmers are not asked to shoulder an unreasonable share of the burden, while continuing to produce safe, affordable food."

A Just Transition Commission ensures the transition to a low-carbon society is fair and inclusive.

Climate change scrutiny body to be set up

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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.

Northern Ireland has taken a step closer to establishing a Just Transition Commission (JTC), with draft regulations to be brought to the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and the Assembly.
Agriculture and rural representatives will be among those on the Commission.
The JTC is a key element of climate change legislation and seeks to ensure no-one is left behind or unduly disadvantaged by the transition to a low-carbon society.
Farming leaders say it must "deal honestly with what is achievable on farms".
The Daera minister Andrew Muir said progressing the JTC was "an important milestone" for Northern Ireland, adding the JTC would be "essential" in delivering fair climate action.
What a Just Transition Commission does
A JTC oversees the implementation of climate action to ensure the transition to a low-carbon society is fair and inclusive.
That means that no one sector of the community should be disadvantaged or left behind by decision-making on achieving net zero.
Commissions have already been set up in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, as well as other countries around the world including Germany, South Africa and New Zealand.
Northern Ireland's JTC will be the first in these islands to be established in statute.
Who will sit on the Commission?
Under climate change legislation, seven sectors are required to be represented on the JTC - academia; youth groups; civic society; trade unions; fisheries; agriculture; and environment.
After a ten-week consultation, it is proposed to add representatives from energy, transport, the built environment, the rural sector, and green finance.
The Commission will also oversee the Just Transition Fund for agriculture that is also required under the legislation.
A competition to appoint the commissioners will be held after the regulations progress through the Committee and Assembly.
The design of the Commission will be based on the Scottish model, where a JTC has been in operation since 2019.
Farmers have concerns
The Ulster Farmers' Union said the Commission "must confront the hard reality facing farmers", adding that agriculture-specific targets are "simply unachievable".
Deputy president John McClenaghan said the UFU supported the establishment of the JTC, but its success would depend on whether it would "deal honestly with what is achievable" on farms.
"Agriculture faces unique and unavoidable biological constraints, and climate targets that ignore these realities are neither fair nor credible."
Agriculture is the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases in Northern Ireland.
The independent Climate Change Committee, which advises the UK government on climate change, has recommended a shift to low-carbon farming to meet emission reduction targets.
Work is underway to try to reduce emissions through making production more efficient, improving soil quality and looking at feed additives to cut the amount of methane produced by livestock.
McClenaghan said agriculture was prepared to play its part in tackling climate change.
"But it must be evidence-based, proportionate and achievable.
"The current legislative framework does not yet strike that balance.
"It is essential that the Commission recognises these shortcomings and works to ensure that farmers are not asked to shoulder an unreasonable share of the burden, while continuing to produce safe, affordable food."

What a difference a single year makes. The once-dominant push to radically reshape society in hopes of averting climate catastrophe has collapsed. Look at Davos, the talkfest long dominated by climate advocacy. That consensus has been all but abandoned by its once strongest proponents.
Emblematic of the shift: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen didn't mention the climate transition even once in her 2026 Davos, Switzerland, talk after putting it front and center in preceding years.
But it's not just the Europeans. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney once called for"a global net zero commitment" to solve climate change, which he saw as "an existential threat." Now Carney admits that the "architecture of collective problem-solving" long supported by World Economic Forum elites - and including United Nations-organized climate change summits - has been "diminished." At home, he's pledging to make Canada into an "energy superpower."
In the U.S., Democratic politicians have stopped leading with climate change as a central issue, shifting focus to affordability, low energy prices and immediate economic relief instead. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist winner of last November's election, campaigned on rising grocery bills and housing costs, and barely discussed climate change.
This global shift is not all down to the election of President Donald Trump. Voters have become sick and tired of constant climate alarmism, meaning many climate advocacy voices like environmentalist and author Bill McKibben have had to dial back their rhetoric. Shouting about doomsday is failing to deliver political gains.
Other issues have become much more important to voters, and people are reading and watching climate change news less across the global north. The media itself has less to say: According to a Washington Post analysis, 2025 saw the fewest media mentions of climate change since it started keeping track in March 2022.
A Searchlight Institute poll highlighted that voters in battleground states are prioritizing pocketbook concerns over abstract environmental threats, with political strategists advising against talking about "climate change" altogether because "when leaders say the words 'climate change,' voters get bad vibes."
This course correction means that the media and leftwing politicians are catching up with the public, who say climate change ranks low even compared with other environmental concerns. A Pew Research Center global survey from August found that many high-income countries have seen a mass reduction in concerns around climate change as a major threat.
This recalibration even extends to advocacy groups and observers, who have retreated from confrontational doomerism.
This retreat is good for sensible policy, because the failed alarmist approach relied on a series of persistent misrepresentations. Take the claim that extreme weather events, because of climate change, have dramatically made us worse off. This is simply untrue.
Deaths from climate-related disasters including storms, floods, droughts and fires have declined sharply over the past century, with the last decade seeing some of the lowest numbers on record, despite global population quadrupling. In the 1920s, the global death toll was near half a million per year on average - last year it was less than ten thousand, a reduction of more than 97%.
This progress results from better warnings, stronger infrastructure, improved disaster response and overall societal wealth that enables such protections. Adaptation through innovation has proved far more effective than fear-driven restrictions.
Another big fib is the idea that China is rapidly going green. The reality is that China is massively reliant on fossil fuels just like everyone else. Half a century ago, China got 40% of its energy from renewables - when it relied on burning wood and dung because its people were poor. As Chinese people have since become massively wealthier, fossil fuels peaked at producing 92% of the country's energy in 2011 - and that figure has only ebbed slightly, to 87% in 2023, the last year for which there are data.
Ambitious commitments made at successive climate summits that would redirect enormous financial flows toward green projects in poor countries have proved illusory. Rich countries continuously failed to honor their $100-billion per-year climate finance promise and - to make matters worse - largely repackaged development aid that could otherwise have helped fight hunger and diseases
Activists and politicians demanded urgent, economy-wide transformations, insisting that only massive shifts could avert climate disaster. They mobilized calls for trillions to flow from taxpayers and conventional industries into renewables. Those grand visions have faltered, and private capital has been all but withdrawn amid high risks and uncertain returns. What was presented as an inevitable tidal wave of sustainable finance now appears more like a passing blip.
Europe provides the starkest warning of idealism clashing with reality. Germany's vaunted energy transition has been a textbook case of climate scares driving poor but immensely costly decisions. Now, Chancellor Friedrich Merz confesses that Germany has achieved "the most expensive energy transition in the entire world."
A large part of the cost comes from prematurely shutting down nuclear plants that were reliable, low-carbon and already fully paid for. Instead, German policymakers increased reliance on coal and gas drove up emissions and saw electricity prices skyrocket. Merz now admits "it was a serious strategic mistake to exit nuclear energy."
The transition from exaggeration to muted realism among the leaders at Davos is at least some progress. This reflects recognition that exaggerated fear tactics have led to public disconnection, bad policies and political backlash. Now we need to focus on what works. For now, we should deliver cheap, secure energy to boost prosperity while we innovate for a greener future.
____
This story was originally published

What: Meeting of the Committee of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change (CAHOSCC) on the Margins of the 39th AU Ordinary Session of the Assembly
When: 13th February 2026
Time: 15:30 – 17:30 Hrs
Where: AUC Headquarters, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Who:
African Union Commission
CAHOSCC
Why: The mandate of CAHOSCC is to spearhead the African Common Position on Climate Change and its key messages and ensure that Africa speaks with one voice in global climate change negotiations
OBJECTIVE OF THE MEETING
The objective of the meeting is to present and reflect on the following:
The outcome of the 30 th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 30)
Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 30) The outcomes of the Second Africa Climate Summit (ACS 2) held from 8 th to 10 th September 2025 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
to 10 September 2025 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The implementation status of the African Leaders Nairobi Declaration on Climate Change and Call to Action.
The African Action Plan on Carbon markets and the African Gold Standard for Carbon Markets Initiatives.
The reports from the African Climate Commissions and Climate Initiatives.
EXPECTED OUTCOME
Consideration of the Report of the CAHOSCC Coordinator and Draft Decision of CAHOSCC.
Media Access:
Accredited members of the media are invited to cover the opening session and key highlights of the Forum.
Media Contact:
Molalet Tsedeke | Information and Communication Directorate | African Union Commission | Email: MolaletT@africanunion.org
Noel John | Information and Communication Directorate | African Union Commission | Email: Kenyin@africanunion.org

Meeting of the Committee of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change (CAHOSCC)

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Advertisement
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years, and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
Advertisement
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries—including 210 in the United States—and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat-related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'

The Trump administration revoked the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding that climate change harms public health—which President Trump called a "scam"—despite thousands of scientific studies documenting…

The latest headlines from our reporters across the US sent straight to your inbox each weekday Your briefing on the latest headlines from across the US Your briefing on the latest headlines from across the US Email
*
SIGN UP
I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice
The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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.

By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
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.

The following is a great post from Gary Abernathy at the Empowerment Alliance that addresses the pompous self-righteous nature of the climate blob's true believers:
One of the most annoying things about climate doomsayers is the certainty with which they
make their dire predictions, while simultaneously making excuses for all their past prognostications that failed to materialize. Let's revisit a few.
In the early to mid-1970s, several magazine articles and a number of scientists predicted that
cooling trends could usher in a new 'mini-ice age' beginning within a few short years. Didn't happen. In fact, new crystal balls went from cold to hot.
A June 1989 Associated Press story quoted 'a senior U.N. environmental official' who claimed
that 'entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming
trend is not reversed by the year 2000.'
Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, insisted that
'governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes
beyond human control.' Without action 'ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations.'
At last report, the Maldives continue to thrive – thanks largely to growing tourism!
According to CBS News, in 2009 former Vice President Al Gore (always good for a chuckle) 'told
a U.N. climate conference that new data suggests the Arctic polar ice cap may disappear in the
summertime as soon as five to seven years from now,' meaning 2016 at the latest. Didn't happen.
In 2000, the UK Independent ran an article quoting a scientist who suggested that within a
decade, thanks to global warming, British children 'won't know what snow is.' Don't tell that to the
British youngsters and others who experienced the severe winters of 2010, 2013, 2018, etc.
Enough? Let's do a couple more.
There were numerous predictions in the early 2000s that all glaciers in Glacier National Park
would disappear by 2020 or, if we were lucky, by 2030.
'Later predictions delayed the glaciers' inevitable demise to 2050,' according to a December
2025 article in the Daily Inter Lake. 'Now, researchers say there is reason to believe some of the park's perennial ice formations will persist into the 2100s.' Glaciers are famously stubborn.
Several news stories over the years have quoted scientists and climate alarmists predicting that
New York City would disappear under water thanks to flooding due to climate change.
For instance, in 2011, on the heels of Hurricane Irene, The Guardian produced the headline,
'Major storms could submerge New York City in next decade,' and a subhead, 'Sea-level rise due to
climate change could cripple the city in Irene-like storm scenarios, new climate report claims.'
Instead, the only tsunami facing New York City is the flood of debt coming under socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Despite a track record that should discourage even the most ardent true believer, the predictions keep flying, fast and furious, most centered these days around slightly rising temperatures that will allegedly increase rainfall, create more wicked storms, and lead to drought, flood (they always
cover both possibilities) or other catastrophes.
'Climate change is real, it's happening and unless we do something about it soon, the
consequences will be severe,' according to Martin Krause, director of the United Nations Environment Programme's Climate Change Division. Second verse, same as the first.
While most believers in manmade climate change are part of the 'Let's Come Up With the Worst Case Scenario and Hope it Scares Everyone Into Action' school of alarmism, it's refreshing to
occasionally come across someone with a more reasonable approach.
Fitting that bill might be Noah Kaufman, former senior economist at the Council of Economic
Advisers during the Biden administration, currently a senior research scholar at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy and a co-director of the Resilient Energy Economies Initiative.
In a 'let's all calm down a minute' article appearing earlier this month in The Atlantic, Kaufman
— while making it clear that he personally is firmly aboard the manmade climate change bandwagon — laments the specific time-and-date panic predictions that have helped lose respect and credibility for his cause.
'Few economists embrace these all-or-nothing views on climate policy,' Kaufman writes.
Kaufman points out that 'quantitative estimates of aggregated global damages over centuries
lie far beyond our analytical capabilities. Small changes in assumptions … can yield results that appear tojustify virtually any policy response.'
At the end of the day, 'these models can display a pessimistic worldview in which climate
damages accelerate to catastrophic levels, or a more optimistic one in which human progress keeps
damages relatively modest. They offer little help in determining which of these futures is coming.'
Kaufman concludes by acknowledging that 'the full effects of climate change are unknowable,
and a more constructive public discussion about climate policy will require getting more comfortable with that.'
I recommend Kaufman's article. Even though I will likely remain among those who agree that
the climate routinely changes but remain skeptical about the extent of mankind's impact, I don't mind discussing it and listening to different viewpoints. Such conversation is much more palatable with someone who is not exhibiting a holier-than-thou attitude or demeaning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees.
More manmade climate change believers who take a respectful, calmer and non-accusatory
approach to the naysayers could go a long way in lowering the temperature – and don't we all agree on that objective?
Hat Tip: R. Nolan
columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

The following is a great post from Gary Abernathy at the Empowerment Alliance that addresses the pompous self-righteous nature of the climate blob's true believers:

"Holier Than Thou" True Believers in the Falsehood That the Climate Is in Crisis Only Reveal Their Lack of Credibility

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths - thousands every year - in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency's findings in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries - including 210 in the United States - and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths - heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria - and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life - $11.5 million in 2014 dollars - and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.

AP Science Writer (AP) — The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called "a scam." But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.Again and again, research has...

Scientific Studies Calculate Climate Change as Health Danger, While Trump Calls it a 'scam'

AP Science Writer (AP) — The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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.
Copyright
© 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific…

What a difference a year makes. The push to radically reshape society to avert climate catastrophe has collapsed. At Davos — a talkfest long dominated by climate advocacy — even the strongest proponents of climate consensus abandoned it.
Article content
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen didn't mention the climate transition once after putting it front-and-centre in recent years. Prime Minister Mark Carney, who once called for 'a global net zero commitment' to solve climate change, which he saw as 'an existential threat,' now admits that the 'architecture of collective problem-solving' long supported by World Economic Forum elites, and including UN-organized climate change summits, has been 'diminished.' At home, he's pledging to make Canada an 'energy superpower.'
Article content
Article content
In the U.S., even Democrats have stopped leading with climate change as a central issue, shifting their focus to affordability, low energy prices and immediate economic relief instead. Zohran Mamdani, New York's new democratic socialist mayor, campaigned on rising grocery bills and housing costs, barely discussing climate change.
Article content
Article content
This global shift is not all down to the election of Donald Trump. Voters themselves have become sick and tired of constant climate alarmism. And because shouting about doomsday is failing to deliver political gains, many climate advocates have dialed back their rhetoric.
Article content
Across the global North, people are reading and watching climate change news less. The media itself has less to say: according to a Washington Post analysis, 2025 saw the fewest media mentions of climate change since March 2022. Some political strategists advise against talking about 'climate change' at all because 'when leaders say the words … voters get bad vibes.'
Article content
This course correction means the media and left-wing politicians are catching up with the public, who say climate change ranks low even compared to other environmental concerns. A Pew Research Center global survey from last August found a reduction over the past few years across high-income countries in the number of people seeing climate change as a major threat. Even advocacy groups and observers have retreated from confrontational doomerism.
Article content
This retreat is good news for sensible policy. The failed alarmist approach relied on a series of persistent misrepresentations. For instance, the claim that extreme events due to climate change have made us dramatically worse off is simply untrue. Deaths from climate-related disasters such as storms, floods, droughts and fire have declined sharply over the past century, with the past decade seeing some of the lowest numbers ever, despite world population having quadrupled. In the 1920s, the global death toll was almost half a million per year on average. Last year it was less than 10,000 — down more than 97 per cent.
Article content
Article content
Another big fib is the idea that China is rapidly going green. In reality, China is every bit as reliant on fossil fuels as everyone else. Half a century ago, when its poorest people still burned wood and dung, China got 40 per cent of its energy from renewables. But as wealth rose, by 2011 fossil fuels were providing 92 per cent of the country's energy. That's down only slightly, to 87 per cent in 2023, the last year for which there are data.

Declining climate alarmism across the world opens the way for sensible policies to encourage economic growth and clean innovation. Read on

Bjorn Lomborg: Sensible climate policy requires growth and innovation

AP Science Writer (AP) — The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
Sign up for the Breaking News newsletter
Get the latest breaking news as it happens.
By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
President Donald Trump speaks during an event with Environmental Protection Agency director Lee Zeldin to announce the EPA will no longer regulate greenhouse gases, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Thursday, Feb. 12, 2026, in Washington. Credit: AP/Evan Vucci
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
A pumpjack is visible before sunrise Feb. 26, 2025, in Kermit, Texas. Credit: AP/Julio Cortez
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."

The Trump administration has revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called "a scam."

Washington: The
Trump
administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that
climate change
is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald
Trump
called "a scam." But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths - thousands every year - in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the
Obama
administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at
climate change
and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on "Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 " in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries - including 210 in the United States - and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related "as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas."
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
"Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true," said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
"It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing."
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: "It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam."
Experts strongly disagree.
"Health risks are increasing beca
us
e human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change."
Patz and Frumkin both said the "vast majority" of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths - heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria - and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life - $11.5 million in 2014 dollars - and calculated a global annual cost "on the order of at least $10 billion."
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
"Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires," said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
"We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health."
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much "due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths."
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, "total mortality rises rapidly."

The Trump administration disputes scientific findings that climate change poses a public health threat, which contradicts extensive research documenting increasing health risks and fatalities from…

Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.

The 25th Winter Olympic Games are upon us, with Italy set to host the Games for the fourth time. The schedule at the 2026 Milano Cortina Winter Olympics is set to look similar to previous iterations of the event: a mix of snow and ice sports held on what is meant to be mountainous, wintry terrain.
Except the snowy cold winter that comes to mind when you picture the Olympic Games may not be tenable for much longer.
Climate change is reshaping winter sports worldwide. In the Northern Hemisphere, the winter season has shortened over the last 50 years, with low elevation regions warming at twice the rate of global warming, leading to widespread declines in snowpack.
Snow sport athletes are experiencing these changes firsthand. In recent years, several International Ski and Snowboard Federation World Cup events have been cancelled due to poor snow and unsafe conditions.
In 2023, nearly 300 concerned athletes sent a letter to the federation demanding more action on climate change and a 'geographically reasonable' race schedule aligned with evolving weather realities. A 2021 survey of 339 professional and Olympic winter athletes and coaches from 20 countries found 90 per cent were concerned about how climate change would affect the future of winter sports.
For the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, climate change could fundamentally impact where the Games can be held in the future. In 2022, the International Olympic Committee delayed the selection of the 2030 host city so that it could obtain a clearer understanding of the climate risk of potential future host locations.
Our 2024 study of 93 potential host locations - those with the necessary infrastructure in place to host such a spectacle - found that even with advanced snowmaking, a significant number would no longer have reliable snow in future. By the 2050s, the pool of potential Olympic hosts halved, and worryingly, few (17 to 31) had viable conditions to host the Paralympics.
Olympic and Paralympic peril
Our recent study explores a wide range of strategies to mitigate the risks posed by climate change to the Winter Olympics and Paralympics. Each strategy requires careful evaluation by Olympic and Paralympic committees, host cities and sport federations.
Many involve trade-offs that can impact the ability of communities to host the games, the athlete and spectator experience, and potentially, the sustainability of the Games. For example, the location of snow sports venues further away from the main host city, where the indoor events are held, could enhance climate reliability. However, that would increase travel times and emissions, as well as reduce the ability of spectators to see some competitions.
At this year's Milano Cortina Games, venues are dispersed between sites across northern Italy. That will make it more challenging for athletes and fans to mingle, a setback to team unity and spirit. Several more athletes than usual won't be able to attend the opening or closing ceremonies because they'll be competing several hundred kilometres away.
Changing the schedule
Given that the Paralympics are held after the Olympics, they are especially at risk due to climate change. The 'one bid, one city' agreement, which requires a host city to stage both Games at the same venues, may need to be reconsidered.
This agreement has elevated para sport to new levels of visibility and excellence. However, our research suggests that it cannot survive climate change, and losing the Paralympics would be a devastating setback for winter sports.
The solution? Adjust the schedule so the Paralympics can be held earlier. Our analysis revealed that holding the Winter Olympics and Paralympics three weeks earlier in the year has tremendous potential to increase the number of climate reliable hosts.
Moving the Olympics so the Games begin in late January or the first week of February, and the Paralympics in late February or the first week of March, nearly doubled the number of climate-reliable host locations for the Paralympics.
That would help safeguard the 'one bid, one city' arrangement through the mid-century and into the late century, if the Paris Climate Agreement's goals are achieved. Other options that ensure snow reliability include having the two events overlap, alternating the years the Games are hosted or putting the events in two separate locations in the same year. But each of these introduces political and logistical challenges.
What about snowmaking?
The increased reliance on snow-making has drawn criticism, particularly after the 2022 Beijing Games used nearly 100 per cent machine-made snow. Snow-making has been used at every Winter Olympics since 1980 in Lake Placid, and will be increasingly integral in the future.
Our analysis found that without snow-making, the snow sports program of the Winter Games as we currently know it is simply not possible.
In the absence of snow-making, the number of climate-reliable potential hosts for the Olympic Games declines to four or fewer by 2050.
There are important sustainability concerns that must be addressed when it comes to snow-making, like how to reduce the energy and water demands of the practice and how to reduce the impacts on local biodiversity.
Snow-makers are putting effort into improving the technology to reduce negative environmental impact, but more work is needed to make the practice more efficient.
While it has its drawbacks, without snow-making, the Games would increasingly become unfair and unsafe for athletes. Events and competitions would need to be cancelled, and eventually, it would become impossible to include snow sports in the Winter Games.
While no outdoor sport will escape the consequences of accelerating climate change, snow sports are the canary in the coal mine.
The global sports community must work together to advocate for strong climate action to achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, protect the safety of future Olympians and Paralympians and preserve the cultural heritage of this global celebration of sport for generations to come.

Except the snowy cold winter that comes to mind when you picture the Olympic Games may not be tenable for much longer

As climate changes, what does future hold for Winter Olympics, Paralympics

By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
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.

Hurricane Helene, one of the deadliest hurricanes in US history, did not affect people's views on climate change or their intentions to vote for politicians advocating stricter climate policies. This is shown in a new study from the University of Gothenburg. "Attitudes unchanged: no support for increased climate change beliefs, concerns, or voting intentions after Hurricane Helene" is published in Environmental Research Communications.
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest sci-tech news updates.
In late September 2024, Tropical Storm Helene swept across the southeastern United States. When the storm subsided a few days later, the destruction was extensive and more than 250 people had lost their lives. The event occurred just five weeks before the US presidential election, prompting researchers to ask whether this type of extreme weather can influence public attitudes toward climate change and support for environmental policy.
To be able to assess cause and effect, the researchers conducted a two-wave study. The first wave took place one month before the hurricane, when 1,155 Americans responded to a survey. The second wave was conducted immediately after the hurricane, when the same participants answered the same questions again. The survey asked about voting intentions in the upcoming election, views on climate change, and concerns about extreme weather. Some participants lived in areas affected by the hurricane, while others lived in regions that were not affected.
"The results show that the hurricane did not change people's views on climate change. Concerns about extreme weather were also unaffected, and there was no increase in the number of people planning to vote for politicians in favor of stricter climate policies. The findings relate to group-level effects of this specific hurricane and do not necessarily apply to individuals or other extreme weather events," says Magnus Bergquist, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Gothenburg.
Previous studies that have found links between extreme weather and climate attitudes are often based on data collected at a single point in time, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about cause and effect.
"By measuring attitudes both before and after Hurricane Helene, our study provides strong evidence of unchanged concern about climate change and stable support for climate policy, even among people exposed to an extremely severe hurricane," says Bergquist.
The researchers also analyzed the role of political affiliation. In line with previous research, political preference proved to be a much stronger predictor of voting intentions than exposure to a powerful hurricane. Democrats showed greater support for politicians advocating climate policy reforms than Republicans. Differences between supporters of the respective parties were substantially larger than differences between affected and non-affected regions, or between measurements taken before and after the hurricane.
"This may point to the importance of how extreme weather events are portrayed in the media. Media coverage following Hurricane Helene largely focused on the responsibility of politicians and institutions in managing the crisis, rather than on links to climate change. This may have influenced how people interpreted the event and could help explain why neither climate-related attitudes nor voting intentions were affected," says Sofiia Skipor, Ph.D. student in Psychology.
More information: Magnus Bergquist et al, Attitudes unchanged: no support for increased climate change beliefs, concerns, or voting intentions after Hurricane Helene, Environmental Research Communications (2026). DOI: 10.1088/2515-7620/ae2f91
Provided by University of Gothenburg

Hurricane Helene did not shift US climate views or votes, study finds

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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.

By SETH BORENSTEINAP Science Writer The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a…

Under pressure from Republican state attorneys general, the agency that advises the U.S. Supreme Court and federal judges on scientific and technical matters has withdrawn the entirety of its content on climate change from a new judicial reference manual.
The move by the Federal Judicial Center leaves judges without any official support on how to weigh evidence about basic weather and climate changes just as numerous climate cases make their way through state and federal courts, including two on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court for the current term.
The center was created as an education agency and is chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts. By law, it is charged with overseeing court policies and researching technical and scientific issues that come before the court. The Supreme Court press office did not respond to a request for comment.
On Dec. 31, 2025, the center released the first update in 15 years of its 1,682-page peer-reviewed guide, called the 'Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,' including more than 90 pages defining climate terminology and describing the state of scientific consensus on climate change and the methods used to attribute specific weather events to climate warming and its causes. The chapter acknowledges uncertainty in some areas of climate science; it generally reflects the conclusions of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The manual, widely cited and relied upon by law clerks and justices, is produced in partnership with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and also includes chapters on artificial intelligence, DNA identification and epidemiology, among other subjects. It is considered among the most important and trusted guides for justices grappling with technical material, in large part because it is endorsed by the judicial branch itself.
Its publication of the chapter on climate change, however, drew immediate criticism from conservatives, who allege that the section is slanted against oil and gas producers and represents an effort by activists to sway the opinion of judges deliberating on current cases.
The withdrawal comes as a number of lawsuits seek to hold oil and gas companies accountable for the damage caused by climate change, which has been scientifically linked to the emissions produced by burning fossil fuels. Republican attorneys general have repeatedly criticized these lawsuits, accusing liberal groups of using tort law to enact regulatory policy and supporting efforts to have cases dismissed or moved into federal court.
On Feb. 2, more than 20 Republican attorneys general wrote to the House and Senate judiciary committees stating that the manual is 'tainted by biased authors, reviewers, and sources involved in ongoing litigation,' and that it is an 'inappropriate attempt to rig case outcomes in favor of one side.' The group encouraged the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, to include the publication in a recently announced investigation into a program by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research group, to educate justices on climate change.
The next day, the Federalist Society, a conservative judicial organization, convened a panel to discuss the publication of the manual. The moderator said it runs counter to the Federal Judicial Center's role as a 'neutral arbiter of fact' and warned that the 'inclusion of a climate science section advances an ideological agenda.'
The chapter reflects 'an assumption that certain bodies of evidence are automatically more credible than others,' Michael Williams, West Virginia's solicitor general, told the panel's audience. It suggests 'certain questions are resolved when they're actually still being litigated before courts.'
On Feb. 6, the director of the Federal Judicial Center, Judge Robin Rosenberg of the Southern District of Florida, wrote to West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey that the center 'has omitted the climate science chapter.'
In their letter last week, the attorneys general raised concerns that one of the authors of the climate chapter is employed by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University and that in the footnotes of the report the authors thank the executive director of that program, Michael Burger. Burger, who declined to comment, is of counsel to the law firm Sher Edling, which represents several of the plaintiffs in the climate cases, including the city of Honolulu.
The objections by the state attorneys general represent 'a bad-faith critique that is ultimately aimed at repressing scientific information,' Jessica Wentz, one of the chapter's authors, said. The withdrawal of the chapter, she said, 'is going to be used to advance this narrative that there is a debate about even the most fundamental aspects of climate change.'
Wentz said that she has never been a witness or served as counsel in any climate litigation and that it is disingenuous for the attorneys general to object to the material in the climate chapter — which acknowledges the consensus that human activity is responsible for warming — because it is the subject of contested litigation. None of the major climate lawsuits that she is aware of debate the science of warming and instead address questions about fossil fuel companies' responsibility. 'The infusion of bias,' Wentz said, comes not from exposure to scientific information but 'from the suppression of that scientific information.'
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine has maintained a copy of the original manual on its own website even as the Federal Judicial Center has removed the version with the climate change chapter from its own. A representative from the center declined to comment, and members from the House Judiciary Committee could not immediately be reached for comment.

The 'Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence' — updated for the first time in 15 years — eliminates some 90 pages about climate science and comes just as numerous climate cases make their way through…

Under GOP Pressure, Federal Agency Pulls Climate Change Chapter From Official Manual for U.S. Judges

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm. Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a […]

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'

Climate change: Scrutiny body to be set up in Northern Ireland

Vulnerability. Susceptibility. Defenselessness. There is a profound connection between human fragility—both physical and emotional—and the increasing instability of our planet's climate. This intersection is not just metaphorical. It reflects a well-documented reality where changes in the environment directly compromise the health of the human heart and the well-being of the world's most vulnerable populations.
Climate change acts as a grave threat to cardiovascular health. Extreme environmental factors are now increasingly linked to heart-related emergencies. High temperatures force the heart to work harder to cool the body, which can lead to heart failure or stroke, especially in the elderly. Emissions from fossil fuels are direct drivers of heart disease and stroke. Air pollution has been linked to about four million deaths from present conditions.
People with preexisting chronic conditions have a lower capacity to adapt to rapid climate shifts. Thus, vulnerable hearts refer to the marginalized groups and countries that bear the burden of climate impacts despite contributing the least to the climate crisis. Extreme weather events (typhoons, floods) cause direct damage to countless lives, livelihoods, and infrastructure. Climate change alters the natural support systems of an economy. Long-term shifts, including rising sea levels and sustained high temperatures, cause debilitating environmental risks.
Article continues after this advertisement
Across populations, children are among the most susceptible to climate whiplash and climate shocks, which threaten their basic rights to health, nutrition, and a safe environment. Protecting the future means protecting our children from the onslaught of extreme climate impacts. Beyond physical health, climate instability causes profound psychological stress, imbalance, and inequity within communities facing massive displacement or loss of livelihood.
Climate change results in the loss of biodiversity and the collapse of ecosystem services (like water purification, pollination, and natural flood protection). Through systemic degradation and the resulting resource scarcity, climate change threatens food security. In the context of climate change, overpopulation and overconsumption are the primary drivers of environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions.
How do we reduce climate vulnerability? Mitigation involves limiting the extent of climate change by addressing the root cause, and adaptation involves managing the impacts already occurring. Adaptation reduces vulnerability by helping communities bounce back from climate whiplash that produces floods, droughts, and heatwaves. Early warning systems for typhoons can significantly reduce damage to lives and property. Planting mangroves and seagrass can protect coastal communities from hazards like tsunamis and storm surges. Using climate-resistant crops (drought-or-deluge-resistant plants) can help stabilize food sources. Upgrading infrastructure (like buildings, bridges, and seawalls) with stronger and heat resistant materials helps communities adapt to the onslaught of climate shocks. Mitigation includes reducing the long-term effects of climate change by keeping climate impacts within manageable limits.
Shifting from a fossil-fuel-based (uses coal, oil, and natural gas) economy to a renewable-energy-sourced (uses wind, solar, and geothermal energy) economy can prevent future vulnerability. And since vulnerability is most often rooted in existing inequities like poverty and lack of access to resources, there is a need to strengthen social and economic resilience by involving and supporting marginalized groups, indigenous peoples, and women in creating robust and active programs for climate adaptation.
Article continues after this advertisement
What about reducing the human heart's vulnerability to climate change? Individual actions can significantly lower the risk of heart-related episodes triggered by extreme heat or pollution. These may include dietary changes (e.g., less meat consumption), active transport (e.g., choosing walking or cycling over driving), creating personal heat preparedness and assessment plans (especially for high-risk individuals), and getting adequate sleep to reduce the heart's risk factors that can be compromised by climate whiplash.
Medication management (adjustment of medicine dosages to reduce dehydration) and environmental protection (using air purifiers or N95 masks) are essential components of the strategy. Furthermore, increasing tree cover and proximity to green spaces can lower the risk of cardiovascular mortality by providing natural cooling and filtered air. Reducing the use of asphalt and cement and improving air quality through infrastructure changes directly impact population-level heart health. Climate and the human heart are equi-vulnerable.*
*The concept of equi-vulnerability appears in two main contexts: health policy and structural engineering.
Article continues after this advertisement
—————-
Dr. Joel Tiu Maquiling may be reached at [email protected]

Vulnerability. Susceptibility. Defenselessness. There is a profound connection between human fragility—both physical and emotional—and the increasing instability of our planet's climate. This

Vulnerable hearts, vulnerable climate

New report finds proactive adaptation to rising heat and heavy rain could save governments up to $10 billion in infrastructure costs each year
TORONTO, Feb. 9, 2026 /CNW/ - Climate change is already wreaking havoc on the country's aging roads, bridges, storm sewers, and water treatment systems—but new research finds that by investing upfront in adapting public infrastructure, governments could limit those impacts and save billions of dollars each year.
A new report by the Canadian Climate Institute, Prepare or Repair: How climate-proofing public infrastructure pays off, finds that taxpayers will pay a steep and growing price if governments delay or fail to adapt public infrastructure to our changing climate. On the other hand, proactive investment in resilience can sharply reduce infrastructure damage and long-term repair bills.
The analysis shows that governments could save between $5 and $10 billion each year to 2100 by preparing public infrastructure for select climate risks. Investing about $3 billion per year in proactive adaptation would prevent most of the infrastructure damage caused by rising heat and heavier rainfall—freeing up public dollars for other priorities.
The true costs of not adapting are likely even higher: the analysis does not account for the impacts of all climate-driven hazards—such as wildfires, certain types of flooding, permafrost thaw, and coastal erosion—or for the broader economic impacts of infrastructure damage, including disruptions to essential services, business, and trade, and damage to private property.
While proactive adaptation minimizes the costs of climate change, it does not eliminate them. Even in a best-case scenario, the analysis finds that total infrastructure costs—of both adaptation investments and unavoidable climate damage—would still increase by $5 billion per year on average until 2100.
Municipalities would bear most of those costs, even though the benefits have a broad reach across the economy. This mismatch between who pays and who benefits underscores the need for stronger financing and revenue tools to support municipal adaptation.
To close this gap and bolster the resiliency of infrastructure in Canada's changing climate, federal, provincial, and territorial governments should:
The report's findings are clear: every year of delay increases future costs. Without proactive adaptation investment, the toll of climate change on public infrastructure is expected to rise sharply across the country.
Investing now in resilient roads, bridges, sewers, and water infrastructure will protect families, communities, businesses, and the economy from escalating climate threats.
QUOTES
'Canadians are caught in a perfect storm of aging infrastructure and rising climate risks that are already disrupting our daily lives. This isn't a tomorrow problem; it's happening now. The research leaves no doubt: adapting public infrastructure will save Canadians billions of dollars down the road, limiting the cascading impacts of extreme weather, and building a stronger, safer, more prosperous country.'
— Rick Smith, President, Canadian Climate Institute
'The evidence is clear: any delay in adapting our roads, bridges, sewers, and water systems to climate-driven extremes will cost Canadians dearly. Our report offers a clear playbook for action. Now it's up to governments to collaborate and move forward.'
— Ryan Ness, Director, Adaptation, Canadian Climate Institute
'Severe weather is increasingly impacting Canadians—over the past decade it caused a total of $37 billion in insured damage, up from only $14 billion between 2006 and 2015. Making smart investments in infrastructure ensures our communities can better withstand climate risks. Canada can be a global leader in disaster resilience. Now is the time for concerted action to protect Canadians from the growing risks from a changing climate.'
— Maximilien Roy, Vice President Strategy, Insurance Bureau of Canada
'Local governments are already feeling the strain as climate‑driven floods, heat, and heavy storms wear down the infrastructure Canadians rely on every day. This report reinforces what municipalities have been raising for years: investing early in resilient roads, water systems, and public assets protects families from the effects of climate change, strengthens local economies, and saves taxpayers significant costs in the long run. Through initiatives like the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, we have seen how early, targeted investment helps communities put proven solutions in place. With the right tools and strong collaboration across all orders of government, we can help every community build resilience and stay prepared for the climate challenges ahead.'
— Rebecca Bligh, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
'The decisions we take today will determine how prepared Canada will be in the face of increasingly severe weather. This research makes it clear that delaying action comes at an enormous cost. Ensuring the infrastructure backbones of our communities—such as roads, public buildings, and water networks—are adapted to our climate should be a top priority for every order of government. Now is the time for concerted action to protect Canadians from the growing risks from a changing climate.'
— Liam McGuinty, Chair, Climate Proof Canada
RESOURCES
Report | Prepare or Repair: How climate-proofing public infrastructure pays off
About the Canadian Climate Institute
The Canadian Climate Institute is Canada's leading climate change policy research organization. The Institute produces rigorous analysis, economic modelling, and in-depth research focused on incentivizing clean economic growth and low-carbon competitiveness, reducing emissions and accelerating Canada's net zero energy transition, and making our economy and infrastructure more resilient to a warming climate.
climateinstitute.ca
Funding acknowledgement
This work was supported by funding from Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and Climate Proof Canada. The Canadian Climate Institute undertook the project in alignment with its core research priorities and maintained full independence over the research design, methods, results, recommendations, and external communications.
SOURCE Canadian Climate Institute

New report finds proactive adaptation to rising heat and heavy rain could save governments up to $10 billion in infrastructure costs each year

Climate-proofing infrastructure will save taxpayers billions annually

Governments must not squander the opportunity to turn the International Court of Justice's 2025 Advisory Opinion on states' obligations regarding climate change into robust climate action, Amnesty International said ahead of discussions to finalize a new UN climate change resolution.
Informal consultations on the draft resolution circulated by Vanuatu begin today. UN member states are expected to vote on the resolution at the end of March, marking three years since the UN General Assembly first requested the ICJ's opinion.
'The resolution attempts to turn the ICJ's interpretation of key legal standards into a practical roadmap for state accountability which is likely to trigger political pushback from higher income high emitting countries wary of their historical responsibility and financial liability,' said Candy Ofime, Climate Justice Researcher and Legal Advisor at Amnesty International.
Amnesty International is calling on governments to sponsor the resolution and secure its adoption in its current form.
The draft resolution gives unqualified support to the Advisory Opinion and urges states to meet the legal obligations that it clarified. These include:
adopting national climate actions plans, known as nationally determined contributions, to limit global temperature rise to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
taking effective steps to cut emissions, such as ending subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, production and exploitation;
fully upholding their obligations to refrain from returning displaced individuals to a country where climate change impacts pose a risk to life, and to consider creating safe, regular and non‑discriminatory pathways and protection frameworks for persons displaced across borders by climate‑related factors;
for states that have violated their obligations, to provide full and prompt reparation for damage.
'The ICJ in its landmark Advisory Opinion made clear that the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without protection of our climate system and other parts of the environment from the harms of human-induced climate change. We know that extracting and burning fossil fuels are the root cause, yet recent actions by major world leaders, including U.S. President Trump's latest revocation of the 'endangerment finding' on greenhouse gases, have weakened global climate action. This has included defunding key international climate bodies and rolling back multi-lateral climate cooperation,' Candy Ofime said.
This is a vital moment for states to show they stand on the side of climate justice – not delay, weaken, or turn away from their legal obligations and moral duty. Candy Ofime, Climate Justice Researcher and Legal Advisor at Amnesty International
'Global cooperation, with those most responsible for climate change leading the way, is essential to equitably phase out fossil fuels, support a just transition for workers and others impacted by the phase out, protect groups and communities on the frontline of the climate crisis, and finance recovery from climate change-related loss and damage. Without it, climate impacts such as sea-level rise, salinization and coastal erosion, extreme heat, food insecurity, wildfires, violent storms, floods, and safe water shortages will intensify.
'This is a vital moment for states to show they stand on the side of climate justice – not delay, weaken, or turn away from their legal obligations and moral duty. The world cannot afford anything less. Humanity must win.'
Background
The zero draft has now been shared with all UN Member States and will be taken up during informal consultations on 13 and 17 February at the General Assembly in New York, giving every government the opportunity to shape this crucial resolution. A revised draft is expected in early March, followed by a window for states to add their sponsorship and move it toward adoption later in the month.
Amnesty International's Climate Justice team will be available for media comments and interviews throughout this process, providing analysis as the draft evolves and urging governments to strengthen—not dilute—this landmark effort for global climate justice.

A vital moment for states to show they stand on the side of climate justice - not delay, weaken, or turn away from their legal obligations and moral duty. Amnesty International is calling on governments to sponsor the resolution and secure its adoption

UN resolution to turn ICJ's Advisory Opinion on climate change into action

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
Other WRAL Top Stories
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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.

The Trump administration has revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say…

WSJ Opinion: Is AI the Next Climate Change?
Unruly Republic: With artificial intelligence disaster looming, we're told to empower experts, raise taxes! Could we be heading into another version of climate alarmism? Photo: Noah Berger/AP/Vincent Isore/Zuma Press/

Unruly Republic: With artificial intelligence disaster looming, we're told to empower experts, raise taxes! Could we be heading into another version of climate alarmism? Photo: Noah Berger/AP/Vincent Isore/Zuma Press/Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

WSJ Opinion: Is AI the Next Climate Change?

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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.
Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press

The Trump administration on Thursday
revoked a scientific finding
that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal
underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming
.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on
'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023
' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to
a record high
2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in
Nature Climate Change
looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A
new study published this week
found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's
PubMed research database
. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the
2021 heat dome
for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new
climate attribution studies
show that event was made
150-fold more likely due
to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined
disparities among different peoples
and
locations.
A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a
yearly health cost of climate change
.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to
waterborne infections that cause diarrhea
,
mental health issues
and
even nutrition problems
, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still
13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure,
studies show.
Another study
concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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
.

The Trump administration has revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.'.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WSMV) - The 2026 Winter Olympics are underway in northern Italy, showcasing the world's best winter athletes. But data from scientists at the nonprofit Climate Central has found that future Games face uncertainty for outdoor competitions.
The first time Cortina held the Winter Games was in 1956. In the 70 years since, Climate Central found that February temperatures in the Italian town have warmed by 6.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
This warming has had tangible consequences. Since the city held its first Games nearly 70 years ago, it's seen a 19% decline freezing days — from 214 days of below-freezing temperatures during the decade following 1956 to 173 days from 2016 to 2025.
'Without cold enough temperatures and sufficient snow on the ground, Olympic athletes may experience conditions like rain, wet snow, or low snow coverage,' Climate Central says. 'Resistant and hard surfaces are required for elite competition to ensure fair and safe conditions for athletes. If surfaces cannot refreeze, the risk of injuries increases and athletes later in the start list are likely to experience less favorable conditions.'
Cortina, which sits in the high altitudes of the Italian Alps, is thought to be snow-heavy — an essential part of outdoor winter sports. Despite that, this year's Games will require more than 3 million cubic yards of artificial snow.
It's not just northern Italy seeing these changes.
A 2024 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Current Issues in Tourism analyzed nearly past and potential future 100 host cities for the Olympics. It found that if emissions of greenhouse gases — which are known for trapping heat in the atmosphere and increasing global temperatures — remain high, climate change will surpass 'the thresholds of existing weather-risk mitigation strategies.
That, the study says, will result in 'diminishing the ability to guarantee fair and safe snow sports competitions in most host locations by the end of the 21st Century.'
Within 25 years — by the time today's children could be competing in the Games — only a little more than half of the cities analyzed would have reliable climate conditions if emissions remain mid-range.
A separate study in Current Issues in Tourism, this one published in 2022, surveyed 339 elite athletes and coaches from 20 counties found that the changing climate is a major concern for those who compete in the Games. Climate Central said that 94% of those included in the survey said they were concerned climate change will negatively impact their sport.
Many of the winter sports are already seeing changes, Climate Central found.
Researchers said that snowboarding requires adequate snow availability, both for the competitive events and training. Now, they said, 'athletes are having to 'chase the snow' — abandoning their training grounds in search of areas with more abundant and reliable snow."
Downhill skiing is also seeing impacts, with the U.S. already seeing a reduced average ski season. And bobsledding, which is done ideally in freezing or sub-freezing temperatures, is now seeing tracks having to be refrigerated to maintain proper conditions, a process that creates frost that slows down track times.

Winter Olympics outdoor sports are under threat

New report finds proactive adaptation to rising heat and heavy rain could save governments up to $10 billion in infrastructure costs each year
TORONTO, Feb. 9, 2026 /CNW/ - Climate change is already wreaking havoc on the country's aging roads, bridges, storm sewers, and water treatment systems--but new research finds that by investing upfront in adapting public infrastructure, governments could limit those impacts and save billions of dollars each year.
A new report by the Canadian Climate Institute, Prepare or Repair: How climate-proofing public infrastructure pays off, finds that taxpayers will pay a steep and growing price if governments delay or fail to adapt public infrastructure to our changing climate. On the other hand, proactive investment in resilience can sharply reduce infrastructure damage and long-term repair bills.
The analysis shows that governments could save between $5 and $10 billion each year to 2100 by preparing public infrastructure for select climate risks. Investing about $3 billion per year in proactive adaptation would prevent most of the infrastructure damage caused by rising heat and heavier rainfall--freeing up public dollars for other priorities.
The true costs of not adapting are likely even higher: the analysis does not account for the impacts of all climate-driven hazards--such as wildfires, certain types of flooding, permafrost thaw, and coastal erosion--or for the broader economic impacts of infrastructure damage, including disruptions to essential services, business, and trade, and damage to private property.
While proactive adaptation minimizes the costs of climate change, it does not eliminate them. Even in a best-case scenario, the analysis finds that total infrastructure costs--of both adaptation investments and unavoidable climate damage--would still increase by $5 billion per year on average until 2100.
Municipalities would bear most of those costs, even though the benefits have a broad reach across the economy. This mismatch between who pays and who benefits underscores the need for stronger financing and revenue tools to support municipal adaptation.
To close this gap and bolster the resiliency of infrastructure in Canada's changing climate, federal, provincial, and territorial governments should:
Expand funding for infrastructure adaptation and modernize financial tools available to municipalities and other infrastructure owners--including Indigenous governments--to finance resilience upgrades.
Plan, operate, maintain, and renew public infrastructure so it continues to function safely and reliably under future climate conditions.
Strengthen climate hazard data and mapping nationwide to support consistent, risk-informed infrastructure decision-making.
Accelerate updates to infrastructure codes and standards so that new and renewed infrastructure is built to withstand Canada's changing climate.
Ensure all public infrastructure spending consistently accounts for climate risk and supports infrastructure owners in reducing long-term vulnerability.
Tailor programs to support the most vulnerable communities and critical infrastructure.
The report's findings are clear: every year of delay increases future costs. Without proactive adaptation investment, the toll of climate change on public infrastructure is expected to rise sharply across the country.
Investing now in resilient roads, bridges, sewers, and water infrastructure will protect families, communities, businesses, and the economy from escalating climate threats.
QUOTES
"Canadians are caught in a perfect storm of aging infrastructure and rising climate risks that are already disrupting our daily lives. This isn't a tomorrow problem; it's happening now. The research leaves no doubt: adapting public infrastructure will save Canadians billions of dollars down the road, limiting the cascading impacts of extreme weather, and building a stronger, safer, more prosperous country."
-- Rick Smith, President, Canadian Climate Institute
"The evidence is clear: any delay in adapting our roads, bridges, sewers, and water systems to climate-driven extremes will cost Canadians dearly. Our report offers a clear playbook for action. Now it's up to governments to collaborate and move forward."
-- Ryan Ness, Director, Adaptation, Canadian Climate Institute
"Severe weather is increasingly impacting Canadians--over the past decade it caused a total of $37 billion in insured damage, up from only $14 billion between 2006 and 2015. Making smart investments in infrastructure ensures our communities can better withstand climate risks. Canada can be a global leader in disaster resilience. Now is the time for concerted action to protect Canadians from the growing risks from a changing climate."
-- Maximilien Roy, Vice President Strategy, Insurance Bureau of Canada
"Local governments are already feeling the strain as climate‑driven floods, heat, and heavy storms wear down the infrastructure Canadians rely on every day. This report reinforces what municipalities have been raising for years: investing early in resilient roads, water systems, and public assets protects families from the effects of climate change, strengthens local economies, and saves taxpayers significant costs in the long run. Through initiatives like the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, we have seen how early, targeted investment helps communities put proven solutions in place. With the right tools and strong collaboration across all orders of government, we can help every community build resilience and stay prepared for the climate challenges ahead."
-- Rebecca Bligh, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
"The decisions we take today will determine how prepared Canada will be in the face of increasingly severe weather. This research makes it clear that delaying action comes at an enormous cost. Ensuring the infrastructure backbones of our communities--such as roads, public buildings, and water networks--are adapted to our climate should be a top priority for every order of government. Now is the time for concerted action to protect Canadians from the growing risks from a changing climate."
-- Liam McGuinty, Chair, Climate Proof Canada
About the Canadian Climate Institute
The Canadian Climate Institute is Canada's leading climate change policy research organization. The Institute produces rigorous analysis, economic modelling, and in-depth research focused on incentivizing clean economic growth and low-carbon competitiveness, reducing emissions and accelerating Canada's net zero energy transition, and making our economy and infrastructure more resilient to a warming climate.
Funding acknowledgement
This work was supported by funding from Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and Climate Proof Canada. The Canadian Climate Institute undertook the project in alignment with its core research priorities and maintained full independence over the research design, methods, results, recommendations, and external communications.
SOURCE Canadian Climate Institute

/CNW/ - Climate change is already wreaking havoc on the country's aging roads, bridges, storm sewers, and water treatment systems--but new research finds that...

New report finds proactive adaptation to rising heat and heavy rain could save governments up to $10 billion in infrastructure costs each year
TORONTO, Feb. 9, 2026 /CNW/ - Climate change is already wreaking havoc on the country's aging roads, bridges, storm sewers, and water treatment systems—but new research finds that by investing upfront in adapting public infrastructure, governments could limit those impacts and save billions of dollars each year.
A new report by the Canadian Climate Institute, Prepare or Repair: How climate-proofing public infrastructure pays off, finds that taxpayers will pay a steep and growing price if governments delay or fail to adapt public infrastructure to our changing climate. On the other hand, proactive investment in resilience can sharply reduce infrastructure damage and long-term repair bills.
The analysis shows that governments could save between $5 and $10 billion each year to 2100 by preparing public infrastructure for select climate risks. Investing about $3 billion per year in proactive adaptation would prevent most of the infrastructure damage caused by rising heat and heavier rainfall—freeing up public dollars for other priorities.
The true costs of not adapting are likely even higher: the analysis does not account for the impacts of all climate-driven hazards—such as wildfires, certain types of flooding, permafrost thaw, and coastal erosion—or for the broader economic impacts of infrastructure damage, including disruptions to essential services, business, and trade, and damage to private property.
While proactive adaptation minimizes the costs of climate change, it does not eliminate them. Even in a best-case scenario, the analysis finds that total infrastructure costs—of both adaptation investments and unavoidable climate damage—would still increase by $5 billion per year on average until 2100.
Municipalities would bear most of those costs, even though the benefits have a broad reach across the economy. This mismatch between who pays and who benefits underscores the need for stronger financing and revenue tools to support municipal adaptation.
To close this gap and bolster the resiliency of infrastructure in Canada's changing climate, federal, provincial, and territorial governments should:
Expand funding for infrastructure adaptation and modernize financial tools available to municipalities and other infrastructure owners—including Indigenous governments—to finance resilience upgrades.
Plan, operate, maintain, and renew public infrastructure so it continues to function safely and reliably under future climate conditions.
Strengthen climate hazard data and mapping nationwide to support consistent, risk-informed infrastructure decision-making.
Accelerate updates to infrastructure codes and standards so that new and renewed infrastructure is built to withstand Canada's changing climate.
Ensure all public infrastructure spending consistently accounts for climate risk and supports infrastructure owners in reducing long-term vulnerability.
Tailor programs to support the most vulnerable communities and critical infrastructure.
The report's findings are clear: every year of delay increases future costs. Without proactive adaptation investment, the toll of climate change on public infrastructure is expected to rise sharply across the country.
Investing now in resilient roads, bridges, sewers, and water infrastructure will protect families, communities, businesses, and the economy from escalating climate threats.
QUOTES
"Canadians are caught in a perfect storm of aging infrastructure and rising climate risks that are already disrupting our daily lives. This isn't a tomorrow problem; it's happening now. The research leaves no doubt: adapting public infrastructure will save Canadians billions of dollars down the road, limiting the cascading impacts of extreme weather, and building a stronger, safer, more prosperous country."— Rick Smith, President, Canadian Climate Institute
"The evidence is clear: any delay in adapting our roads, bridges, sewers, and water systems to climate-driven extremes will cost Canadians dearly. Our report offers a clear playbook for action. Now it's up to governments to collaborate and move forward."— Ryan Ness, Director, Adaptation, Canadian Climate Institute
"Severe weather is increasingly impacting Canadians—over the past decade it caused a total of $37 billion in insured damage, up from only $14 billion between 2006 and 2015. Making smart investments in infrastructure ensures our communities can better withstand climate risks. Canada can be a global leader in disaster resilience. Now is the time for concerted action to protect Canadians from the growing risks from a changing climate."— Maximilien Roy, Vice President Strategy, Insurance Bureau of Canada
"Local governments are already feeling the strain as climate‑driven floods, heat, and heavy storms wear down the infrastructure Canadians rely on every day. This report reinforces what municipalities have been raising for years: investing early in resilient roads, water systems, and public assets protects families from the effects of climate change, strengthens local economies, and saves taxpayers significant costs in the long run. Through initiatives like the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, we have seen how early, targeted investment helps communities put proven solutions in place. With the right tools and strong collaboration across all orders of government, we can help every community build resilience and stay prepared for the climate challenges ahead."— Rebecca Bligh, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
"The decisions we take today will determine how prepared Canada will be in the face of increasingly severe weather. This research makes it clear that delaying action comes at an enormous cost. Ensuring the infrastructure backbones of our communities—such as roads, public buildings, and water networks—are adapted to our climate should be a top priority for every order of government. Now is the time for concerted action to protect Canadians from the growing risks from a changing climate."— Liam McGuinty, Chair, Climate Proof Canada
RESOURCES
About the Canadian Climate InstituteThe Canadian Climate Institute is Canada's leading climate change policy research organization. The Institute produces rigorous analysis, economic modelling, and in-depth research focused on incentivizing clean economic growth and low-carbon competitiveness, reducing emissions and accelerating Canada's net zero energy transition, and making our economy and infrastructure more resilient to a warming climate.
climateinstitute.ca
Funding acknowledgementThis work was supported by funding from Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and Climate Proof Canada. The Canadian Climate Institute undertook the project in alignment with its core research priorities and maintained full independence over the research design, methods, results, recommendations, and external communications.
View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2026/09/c0524.html
Error while retrieving data
Error while retrieving data
Error while retrieving data
Error while retrieving data
Error while retrieving data

Climate change is already wreaking havoc on the country's aging roads, bridges, storm sewers, and water treatment systems—but new research finds that by investing upfront in adapting public infrastructure, governments could limit those impacts and save billions of dollars each year.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump

AP Science Writer (AP) — The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
Wednesdays
What's next in arts, life and pop culture.
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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.

AP Science Writer (AP) — The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But…

This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at U Conn chapter and does not reflect the views of Her Campus.
Climate change has been one of the defining issues of the 21st century, influencing all aspects of our lives. Extreme weather events, rising temperatures, and environmental disasters are becoming more common and affecting communities across the world. Yet, despite the growing urgency of the crisis, studies show that news coverage of climate change has declined. This paradox — greater public interest but less media attention — raises important questions about how news priorities are shaped and what this means for public understanding of climate issues. View this post on Instagram An example of a recent extreme weather event
A 2025 analysis found that climate coverage decreased even as audience interest increased. Climate stories made up a smaller share of overall news output compared to previous years, despite growing evidence that readers were more likely to engage with climate-related content. In other words, the demand for climate news was rising, but the supply from major media outlets was shrinking. According to the Media and Climate Change Observatory, climate news was down 14% in 2025 compared to 2024, and 38% compared to 2021. This suggests a disconnect between what audiences want and what newsrooms are choosing to prioritize.
One plausible cause is that the news cycle is littered with political issues right now. Therefore, the climate media got put on the back burner. News cycles are often dominated by political crises, wars, elections, or economic downturns, which crowd out slower-moving issues like climate change. Coverage tends to spike during major climate disasters or international conferences, but then fades when other news takes over. This can be harmful because it can make climate change seem like an occasional problem rather than a constant one. Forbes even calls this issue a 'climate coverage crisis.'
Misinformation and politicization have also contributed to the problem. Climate change is a highly polarized issue, making it difficult for news organizations to cover it without attracting backlash. As a result, some outlets reduce coverage to avoid controversy or accusations of bias. Our president has publicly dismissed climate change as a 'con job' and criticized environmental action. These actions shape how climate issues are discussed. News organizations, especially those dependent on advertising or trying to avoid political conflict, may respond by limiting their climate coverage or presenting it as a partisan debate rather than a scientific fact. View this post on Instagram
Climate news plays a critical role in shaping public understanding of one of the most urgent issues of our time. The average person learns about climate change through the media. News coverage helps translate complex scientific information into stories about real-world impacts like extreme weather, rising sea levels, food shortages, and public health risks. When climate stories are consistently covered, they help build awareness and influence political action. A decrease in regular and accurate reporting can reduce the likelihood that individuals or governments will take steps to address it.
Climate news and information is declining in other countries as well, including France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The volume of coverage in Europe and North America decreased to levels not seen since 2016 and 2018. Some countries, like Brazil, India, and Pakistan, have not been impacted, with their reporting rate staying stable. In 2025, no record was broken for the volume of articles referencing 'climate change' or 'global warming,' unlike in previous years. January 2025 saw higher levels of climate reporting in Asian newspapers, but it dropped significantly in December. These fluctuations highlight how climate reporting is often influenced by short-term news cycles rather than sustained attention to long-term environmental challenges. View this post on Instagram
In recent years, climate change has shifted from being a dominant political talking point to a quieter issue. Just a few years ago, Democratic leaders focused on the transition to clean energy, dangers of extreme weather, and legislative victories like the Inflation Reduction Act. In 2024, we saw a 227% increase in companies setting climate goals. Countries were also actively passing climate laws and the public was involved in activism. However, recent analysis shows that congressional Democrats' public mentions of 'climate change' have significantly declined since their peak in August 2022. By 2025, references to climate change reached their lowest levels since tracking began in March 2022.
The decline in climate news coverage and engagement has consequences for public awareness and policy action. When climate change receives less attention, it becomes easier for governments and corporations to delay or weaken environmental policies without as much public backlash. Reduced coverage also limits people's exposure to scientific information and practical solutions, which can lead to confusion or susceptibility to misinformation, something that is especially important right now.
In addition, inconsistent reporting may cause audiences to view climate change differently. They could see it as a distant issue that doesn't really matter, rather than an urgent crisis. Over time, lack of attention can slow the pace of climate action, making it more difficult for societies to adapt to environmental changes or reduce emissions. The decline in climate news coverage does not just affect media trends; it has real implications for the planet and future generations.
Sites such as earth.org, grist.org, and carbonbrief.org publish articles on climate science, environmental policy, and sustainability news around the world. Checking these sources regularly will give you a more detailed coverage than what you might see in the general news.
Accounts like @postclimate and @insideclimatenews share quick, accessible updates about climate science, policy, and solutions. Following them helps keep climate issues visible in your daily feed and makes it easier to stay informed without having to search for the news yourself.
Discussing climate news with friends, family, or peers helps keep the issue a part of your everyday conversation. These discussions can raise awareness, challenge misinformation, and make the topic feel more relevant.
Reaching out to local officials, attending community meetings, or joining sustainability initiatives can help push for stronger climate policies. It also shows leaders that climate issues matter to the people.
If you've noticed a decrease in the amount of climate news you're seeing, it's important to remember that the problem hasn't gone away. The world isn't fixed; there are still serious issues that need our attention. As climate impacts intensify across the globe, consistent reporting is important to inform the public and encourage action. The gap between growing public interest and shrinking coverage shows that both readers and news organizations have a role to play in keeping climate change part of everyday conversations. I challenge everyone to seek out and read at least one piece of climate news each week to fight back against this issue.

Climate change has been one of the defining issues of the 21st century, influencing all aspects of our lives. Extreme weather events, rising temperatures, and environmental disasters are becoming more…

The Decrease In Climate News Coverage: An Analysis

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
Recommended Videos
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
Recommended Videos
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
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.

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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.Submit Correction Δ

The Trump administration on Thursday
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on
A 2021 study in
A
Research is booming on the topic
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's

The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a physician and professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on 'Trends in heat-related deaths in the U.S., 1999-2023 ' in the prestigious JAMA journal shows the yearly heat-related death count and rate have more than doubled in the past quarter century from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database.
More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,'' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly."
___

[B]elieving that we can adapt to just about anything is ultimately a kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time to save our skin. — Al Gore 1992
Climate adaptation is going to be a disaster . . . reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases by switching from fossil fuels to climate-safe renewables is the easier way to deal with climate change. — Andrew Dessler 2022
Adaptation to climate has long been disparaged by climate advocates. Adaptation has been framed as an avoidable cost of the failure to mitigate, fundamentally limited in its effectiveness in reducing climate impacts, and an obstacle to efforts to promote emissions reductions.
In a major new paper, published as a pre-print, we have a new analysis of adaptation — Burgess et al., The Economics of Climate Adaptation Optimism — that makes the case that the narratives promoted by climate advocates, found across the academic literature, and in the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 'often invert reality.'
Specifically, we argue:
Mitigation remains a crucial long-term goal for society—the Earth will continue to warm until emissions reach net zero. However, adaptation—especially via economic development—is the dominant proximate driver of many, if not most, climate-sensitive societal outcomes. Adaptation and development have led to broad long-term improvements in crop yields, affluence, damage and death rates from climate-related hazards, and mortality from violence and self-harm, despite these outcomes' marginal sensitivities to climate. This success, despite limited attention and resource allocation, underscores the potential of adaptation to reduce climate risks, and the importance of prioritizing economic development in solutions to climate change.
Adaptation and mitigation are not trade-offs — or at least they should not be framed as trade-offs — as each influences outcomes on incommensurable scales of space and time.
Costs and benefits of adaptation efforts are closely matched in time and space. Consequently, we show that adaptation's benefits to climate-sensitive outcomes often exceed those of mitigation by orders of magnitude on small-to-medium space and time scales. This can make markets and local governance powerful allies of adaptation. Mitigation efforts that provide immediate economic benefits—such as improving energy efficiency and deploying cheap renewables—have similar advantages. In contrast, mitigation efforts that pose short-term or local costs face cross-regional and intergenerational coordination challenges, due to their diffuse benefits in time and space. Costly mitigation efforts might also undermine adaptation, given the strong link between adaptation and development.
We define adaptation broadly:
We use a broad outcome-based definition of adaptation, including any policy, investment, technology, behavior or institutional change that—regardless of intent—measurably improves climate-sensitive outcomes (e.g., mortality, economic damages, crop yields). This includes both targeted risk-reduction (e.g., building codes, levees, urban cooling, early warning, air-conditioning access, and grid reliability) and broad human development that lowers vulnerability (e.g., infrastructure quality, health systems, education, and general poverty reduction) and is typically associated with affluence.
Across an incredibly wide range of metrics, humanity has successfully adapted itself to life on planet Earth in ways that show undeniable improvement, with considerable room for greater improvements. We include a wide range of such metrics in our paper, similar to the excellent visualization below from Our World in Data.
A big part of our paper involves mathematically formalizing our thinking about how adaptation influences outcomes. That section will appeal to economists and the more math-inclinded readers.
But one does not need math expertise to understand our analysis, with an example visualized in the figure below. The figure shows that the projected impact of climate change on cereal yields is dwarfed by the effect of development, based on analyses found in the literature and combined in our paper.
In this example, in the broader context of development, the projected impact of climate change is relatively small, even if marginally large. This example is more broadly representative. Beware analyses that hold society constant and just look at sensitivities to posited long-term changes in climate — trees and forests.
From our paper, we arrive at several conclusions based on the analysis:
Development trends typically pull climate-sensitive societal outcomes in beneficial
directions faster than climate change pulls them in deleterious directions;
The more locally one zooms in geographically, the smaller the benefits of local mitigation become, compared to adaptation;
Costly mitigation efforts pit the interests of most people alive today against those of most people not yet born, which is politically daunting, even if it were to be judged optimal in the long view;
If the damage and death rates from climate hazards decrease by 0.5% for every 1% increase in real GDP per capita there could be many scenarios where costly mitigation results in more harm to climate-sensitive outcomes via reduced adaptation and development than benefits via lower emissions;
Well-intentioned but costly climate mitigation policies risk deepening the challenges faced by the world's poor.
I have commonly encountered arguments from climate advocates — those who are not degrowthers — who suggest that a reduction in global GDP growth would be a small price to pay for emissions reductions.
In a recent social media interaction I quoted the following prompt and reply from ChatGPT:
Prompt: At the global level, assume a 1% reduction in GDP growth rate over 30 years. Estimate excess deaths for infant mortality, under-5 mortality, and all-cause mortality.
Reply: A sustained 1 percentage-point reduction in global GDP (or GDP per capita) growth over 30 years implies large compounded income losses (≈25% lower income levels by year 30). Using established income–mortality relationships, especially from child-survival research in low- and middle-income countries, this slowdown would plausibly lead to ~9–13 million excess infant deaths and ~12–18 million excess under-5 deaths globally over the period. Because under-5 deaths are included in all-cause mortality, a consistent global estimate implies ~12–44 million excess all-cause deaths over 30 years, with uncertainty driven mainly by how slower long-run growth affects adult mortality in different income settings.
GDP growth is certainly not everything, but it is something.
The implications of our analysis are clear:
Most climate-sensitive societal outcomes have been steadily improving in most regions, and economic development has been the dominant driver of these trends, making economic development a key source of climate adaptation. Given that mitigation has spatially and temporally diffuse benefits, we showed that any mitigation effort with local and immediate economic costs could have adverse immediate and local effects on climate-sensitive outcomes, in addition to their adverse effects on the economy. In contrast, adaptation and economic development have local and immediate benefits to both affluence and climate-sensitive outcomes. In this light, policymakers—who generally operate on local and near-term time scales—should strongly prefer adaptation to costly mitigation, if the policy objective is to improve climate-sensitive outcomes.
Take note however that this conclusion does not mean that reducing emissions makes no sense. To the contrary, we argue that to be effective mitigation policies should learn lessons from successes in adaptation — notably the alignment of the time and space scales of costs and benefits.
We note that there are,
. . . already-abundant approaches to reducing GHG emissions that either create immediate economic benefits or develop world-leading exportable technologies represent opportunities to advance mitigation outside of the challenging tradeoffs with development and adaptation described above.
Here is how we conclude:
Research, policy and public discourse on climate change primarily focus on mitigation (i.e., reducing GHG emissions). Academic and popular narratives are often pessimistic, sometimes verging on apocalyptic and/or Manichean.
In contrast, trends in most climate-sensitive outcomes—such as crop yields, affluence, damage and death rates from climate-related hazards, and mortality from violence and self-harm—are improving in most world regions. These improvements have been largely driven by economic development and the corresponding opportunities for better infrastructure and technology, and more effective decision making that lead to improved adaptation to climate variability and change. On policy-relevant time scales, continued improvements in these outcomes, despite climate change, will be driven predominantly by continued progress in economic development and adaptation. Even in the most optimistic GHG emissions scenarios, society will need to adapt to equally warm or warmer climates than we experience today.
Therefore, climate change research and policy should place greater emphasis on adaptation and economic development. Adaptation and mitigation should be viewed as complementary approaches to addressing climate change, addressing different aspects of the problem on different space and time scales. However, the importance of economic development to innovation, climate-sensitive outcomes and broader well-being calls for cautious approaches to costly climate policies, and ambitious approaches to R&D. Links between economic development, environmental sustainability and human well-being should remain a priority for future research.
You can read the whole pre-print here: Burgess et al. The economics of climate adaptation optimism. It will be submitted for publication soon.
We invite your comments and critique, and are happy to subject this paper to extended peer-review from the broader community, experts and non-experts alike. Thanks!
Coming soon . . . I'll put this new paper on adaptation into the deeper context of efforts I've been involved in over the past three decades to highlight the importance of adaptation to outcomes that we collectively care about.
Note: The Trump administration is apparently poised to release its rescinding of the EPA endangerment finding later this week. Expect my views here at THB when that happens. Meantime, prepare for that discussion with these posts — here and here and here. — RP

We invite your comments on our new pre-print

The Economics of Climate Adaptation Optimism

AP Science Writer (AP) — The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that President Donald Trump called 'a scam.' But repeated scientific studies say it's a documented and quantifiable harm.
Again and again, research has found increasing disease and deaths — thousands every year — in a warming world.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding in 2009, under the Obama administration, has been the legal underpinning of nearly all regulations fighting global warming.
Thousands of scientific studies have looked at climate change and its effects on human health in the past five years and they predominantly show climate change is increasingly dangerous to people.
Many conclude that in the United States, thousands of people have died and even more were sickened because of climate change in the past few decades.
For example, a study on a record high 2,325 in 2023.
A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change looked at 732 locations in 43 countries — including 210 in the United States — and determined that more than a third of heat deaths are due to human-caused climate change. That means more than 9,700 global deaths a year attributed to warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
A new study published this week found that 2.2% of summer deaths in Texas from 2010 to 2023 were heat related 'as climate change brings more frequent and intense heat to Texas.'
Research is booming on the topic
It's been a much-researched topic.
In the more than 15 years, since the government first determined climate change to be a public health danger, there have been more than 29,000 peer-reviewed studies that looked at the intersection of climate and health, with more than 5,000 looking specifically at the United States, according to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed research database. More than 60% of those studies have been published in the past five years.
'Study after study documents that climate change endangers health, for one simple reason: It's true,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington and a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health appointed by President George W. Bush.
'It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing.'
In a Thursday event at the White House, Trump disagreed, saying: 'It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.'
Experts strongly disagree.
'Health risks are increasing because human-cause climate change is already upon us. Take the 2021 heat dome for example, that killed (more than) 600 people in the Northwest,' said Dr. Jonathan Patz, a physician who directs the Center for Health, Energy and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'The new climate attribution studies show that event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.'
Patz and Frumkin both said the 'vast majority' of peer-reviewed studies show health harms from climate change. Peer-reviewed studies are considered the gold standard of science because other experts pore over the data, evidence and methods, requiring changes, questioning techniques and conclusions.
More than just heat and deaths
The various studies look at different parts of health. Some looked at deaths that wouldn't have happened without climate change. Others looked at illnesses and injuries that didn't kill people. Because researchers used different time periods, calculation methods and specific aspects of health, the final numbers of their conclusions don't completely match.
Studies also examined disparities among different peoples and locations. A growing field in the research are attribution studies that calculate what proportion of deaths or illness can be blamed on human-caused climate change by comparing real-world mortality and illness to what computer simulations show would happen in a world without a spike in greenhouse gases.
Last year an international team of researchers looked at past studies to try to come up with a yearly health cost of climate change.
While many studies just look at heat deaths, this team tried to bring in a variety of types of climate change deaths — heat waves, extreme weather disasters such as 2017's Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, air pollution, diseases spread by mosquitos such as malaria — and found hundreds of thousands of climate change deaths globally.
They then used the EPA's own statistic that puts a dollar value on human life — $11.5 million in 2014 dollars — and calculated a global annual cost 'on the order of at least $10 billion.'
Studies also connect climate change to waterborne infections that cause diarrhea, mental health issues and even nutrition problems, Frumkin said.
'Public health is not only about prevention of diseases, death and disability but also well-being. We are increasingly seeing people displaced by rising seas, intensifying storms and fires,' said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a physician and dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
'We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health.'
Cold also kills and that's decreasing
The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in. Those deaths are decreasing, yet in the United States there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than heat exposure, studies show.
Another study concludes that until the world warms another 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) from now, the number of temperature-related deaths won't change much 'due to offsetting decreases in cold-related mortality and increases in heat-related deaths.'
But that study said that after temperatures rise beyond that threshold, and if society doesn't adapt to the increased heat, 'total mortality rises rapidly.'
___
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.

AP Science Writer (AP) — The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that climate change is a danger to public health, an idea that

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to announce Thursday that it is revoking what is known as the endangerment finding, the scientific determination that greenhouse gases harm human health. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has called the move "the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States."
The endangerment finding forms the basis for virtually all of the EPA regulations that curb carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, including from the power sector, oil and gas facilities and from cars and trucks. The scientific evidence connecting greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is well-established, and in 2009 the EPA issued its finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare and required federal regulation of emissions and emissions reporting. Now that's up in the air.
UCLA experts are tracking this major development and its ramifications. Researchers can speak about the legal implications; the established link between greenhouse gases, climate change and extreme weather; the health harms from greenhouse gas air pollution; and more. A silver lining: Increased state freedom to regulate gases Ann Carlson
Carlson is the Shirley Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law as well as faculty director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law. She has written about the potential repeal of the endangerment finding and its federal and state implications. She previously served in the Biden administration as acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Her new book, 'Smog and Sunshine: the Surprising Story of How Los Angeles Cleaned Up Its Air,' will be released on April 7.
'Why repeal the endangerment finding at all? First, the Trump administration may be aiming to get the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which required the EPA in the first place to determine whether greenhouse gases — when emitted from vehicles — endanger public health and welfare. Second, repealing the endangerment finding allows EPA to avoid replacing all the Biden administration climate rules that were issued under the Clean Air Act after it rescinds them.'
'There is a potential silver lining here. Upending the endangerment finding might also allow states to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. The Clean Air Act prohibits states from issuing vehicle standards for emissions that are subject to the act. California, of course, can regulate emissions but it needs EPA permission to do so. If greenhouse gases aren't subject to the Clean Air Act, there's an argument that states could then regulate them independently.'
Email: [email protected] 'A dangerous attack on science and the rule of law' Alejandro Camacho
Camacho is a professor at UCLA School of Law and serves on the board of directors for the Center for Progressive Reform. His new book, 'Lessons for a Warming Planet: A Vital History of U.S. Environmental Law,' will be released on April 21, 2026.
'When it was adopted 17 years ago, there was overwhelming scientific support for the endangerment finding, and the evidence since then has only mushroomed. Even Trump's NASA acknowledges that climate change is 'unequivocal,' and that human pollution is the primary cause. Major Supreme Court cases have upheld EPA's finding and many other EPA actions that rely on this finding. At a minimum, the decision to repeal the endangerment finding is a waste of public resources; at worst, it is a dangerous attack on science and the rule of law.'
'The history of U.S. environmental law is a story of government wantonly facilitating destructive and wasteful resource exploitation that is eventually met and overcome by resistance. Prior generations saw a combination of visionary leaders, expressive social movements and careful political coalitions deploy legal imagination to advance mammoth legal and social change. I am confident that this generation has all of the qualities necessary to safeguard this planet for future generations in the same way.'
Email: [email protected] Less regulation means more air pollution Yifang Zhu
Zhu is an air quality researcher and professor of environmental health sciences at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and UCLA's Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. Her recent work focuses on the dangers posed by urban fire smoke, and how people can protect themselves from harmful pollutants during and after urban conflagrations.
She can speak to the harms that greenhouse gases and unregulated emissions pose to human health.
'Greenhouse gases and air pollutants are closely linked, often originating from the same sources. Rolling back the endangerment finding risks increasing air pollution exposures, particularly in vulnerable communities, with real consequences for respiratory, cardiovascular and overall population health.'
Email: [email protected] A threat to health and a 'blow to global efforts' Michael Jerrett
Jerrett is an air quality researcher and the Jonathan Fielding Professor of Climate Change and Public Health at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, with expertise in the health effects of wildfire smoke. His works include a study on the death toll from wildfire smoke, showing that long-term impacts resulted in more than 50,000 deaths in California over a decade. He also has expertise in extreme heat effects and contributed to California's Fifth Climate Change Assessment.
He can speak to the harms that greenhouse gases and unregulated emissions pose to human health.
'Since the original endangerment finding in 2009, the scientific evidence linking climate change to numerous threats to public health like extreme heat, wildfires, infectious disease and severe storms that cause destructive flooding has gotten a lot stronger. This decision will increase the clear and present danger of climate change to the health and well-being of Americans now and in the future. It's also a blow to global efforts to confront the serious public health threats from climate change.'
Email: [email protected] Greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and threaten human health Alex Hall
Hall is a climate scientist and director of both the Sustainable LA Grand Challenge and Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. He can speak to the role that greenhouses gases play in climate change, the threat climate change poses to human health through extreme weather, and the vital role of collective action and government policies to slow climate change.
'The scientific evidence that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and pose risks to human health is extensive and well established. As wildfire, extreme heat, flooding, and drought increasingly affect communities across the country, coordinating collective action to mitigate the root cause of these growing threats will be critical to protecting human thriving. Policies informed by rigorous research remain essential to protecting lives, livelihoods, and long-term economic stability.'
Email: [email protected] People bear the health harms from pollution David Eisenman
Dr. Eisenman is a UCLA Fielding School of Public Health professor of community health sciences, an associate professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, co-director of the Fielding School's Center for Healthy Climate Solutions and director of the Center for Public Health and Disasters.
He can speak to the harms that greenhouse gases, unregulated emissions and resulting extreme heat pose to human health.
'Repealing the endangerment finding lets the fossil fuel industry off the hook and leaves our communities to bear the health harms of climate pollution. Whether it's more frequent and higher heat or it's the smoke from larger and more frequent wildfires, doctors must continue speaking out, because our patients cannot afford this harm.'
Email: [email protected] 'Repealing a foundation of U.S. climate regulation' Bharat Venkat
Venkat is a medical anthropologist and an associate professor at UCLA's Institute for Society & Genetics, with joint appointments in both anthropology and history. He studies extreme heat and inequality, and is director of the UCLA Heat Lab.
'The EPA is repealing a foundation of U.S. climate regulation. The endangerment finding succeeded in formally connecting the dots between greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, extreme heat and human health — an effort over a century in the making. The endangerment finding identified climate change as an existential threat to the body, rather than a distant environmental worry. Court after court has upheld the endangerment finding, affirming not only the authority of the EPA under the Clean Air Act, but the underlying science itself.'
Email: [email protected] The risk of more extreme weather Karen McKinnon
McKinnon is an atmospheric scientist and statistician studying climate extremes and large-scale climate variability. She is an associate professor in the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, and statistics and data science. Her work seeks to improve our understanding and prediction of climate extremes, variability and change.
She can speak about the established role of greenhouse gases in causing climate change, and the impacts of climate change on high-impact weather extremes.
Email: [email protected] Cities are not prepared V. Kelly Turner
Turner, an expert on the effects of extreme heat, is an associate professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and co-leader of the Heat Resilient L.A. project at UCLA. She studies and recommends policies to address urban heat impacts, from playgrounds to whole neighborhoods.
She can speak to the impact extreme heat from climate change has on human health, and the inability of cities' infrastructure and institutions to respond to extreme heat.
Email: [email protected]

UCLA experts can provide commentary about the administration's decision to repeal a landmark 2009 decision.

UCLA experts: EPA plans to revoke its own endangerment finding, weakening pollution protections

New Brunswick's provincial flag flies on a flagpole in Ottawa, Friday July 3, 2020. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
New Brunswick has completed its first province-wide Climate Change Risk Assessment, which cited flooding, wildfires and coastal erosion as some of the top risks in the past year.
The province says the assessment is an important step in understanding the effects climate change hazards can have on communities, environment and the economy, and will help the province in planning ahead for those hazards.
ADVERTISEMENT
The assessment found the province was already seeing effects from climate change through greater intensity and volume of storms, floods and heatwaves.
Led by the Climate Change Secretariat in partnership with the Climate Risk Institute, the assessment draws on several factors including climate data and scientific research, observed changes and past events in the province, and input from over 275 participants like government agencies, researchers, community grounds and First Nation communities.
Key findings from the report include:
New Brunswick already seeing impacts from climate change through hotter summers, milder winters, heavier rainfall, rising sea levels and damaging storms.
Climate hazards are expected to intensify in severity and frequency with many risks shifting from moderate to severe or critical by the 2050s and 2080s.
Extreme heat and shifting seasonal conditions are expected by the 2080s, compounding risks to health, environment and economy.
Impacts vary by region, with coastal areas facing rising seas and erosion, inland regions being more prone to flooding, forested zones are sensitive to wildfires, and urban areas are seeing greater strain from extreme heat. Vulnerable groups are disproportionately affected by these impacts.
The need for inclusive planning is strong to address inequities and help support those most affected.
The province says priority departments will develop plans to address the top climate risks and reduce vulnerability.
For more New Brunswick news, visit our dedicated provincial page.

New Brunswick has completed its first province-wide Climate Change Risk Assessment, which cited flooding, wildfires and coastal erosion as some of the top risks in the past year.

Global Warming & Climate Change World News