The top 10 countries for annual economic loss from extreme weather events cover all but two continents – Antarctica and Africa.

—

The Philippines and the US pay the highest annual price from climate change-driven extreme weather events in relation to their gross domestic product (GDP), a new assessment has found.

According to Zurich-based reinsurance company Swiss Re’s latest report “Changing climates: the heat is (still) on”, the combination of four extreme weather events – floods, tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons), winter storms in Europe, and severe thunderstorms – results in an estimated global economic loss of US$200 billion annually. 

The analysis, which ranked 36 countries based on the vulnerability of their properties from the intensifying climate crisis, identified the Philippines and the US as the most economically exposed countries to the aforementioned weather hazards today, facing annual economic losses of US$12 billion and $97 billion – or 3% and 0.38% of their GDP equivalent, respectively. 

Both places were also found likely to experience hazard intensification in the future, indicating an increase in climate-related economic losses in the coming years and decades. Moreover, the study recognises that the estimated economic loss is only the “lower bound” of all potential losses, given that widespread hazards such as heatwaves were not taken into consideration.

According to estimates by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published last September, the US saw 23 billion-dollar natural disasters in the first nine months of 2023, with combined costs exceeding $57 billion. The figure did not include all major disasters as economic damages from some events were still being assessed at the time of publication. The year prior was the nation’s third-costliest year ever for climate disasters, with a total of 18 major climate disasters collectively racking up $165 billion in damages and claiming 474 lives.

“In general, countries with sizeable insurance protection gaps and where the establishment of loss mitigation and adaptation measures lags the rate of economic growth, are most financially at risk from hazard intensification,” Swiss Re’s analysis read. This includes fast-growing economies like China, Thailand, India, and the Philippines. Nevertheless, developed nations such as Austria, Australia, Switzerland, Japan, Poland, and the Czech Republic also figure on the list, with the latter two believed to face the highest risk of increasing damages from floods through mid-century.

“Climate change is leading to more severe weather events, resulting in increasing impact on economies. Therefore, it becomes even more crucial to take adaptation measures,” said Jérôme Jean Haegeli, Swiss Re’s Group Chief Economist, arguing that “risk reduction through adaptation fosters insurability.”

2023 was the hottest year on record, with global average temperatures at 1.45C higher than pre-industrial levels, partly owing to the return of the El Niño weather pattern. Rapidly unfolding global warming poses significant risks and threats to human health, food security, water availability, biodiversity, and economic development. To cope with the impacts and uncertainties of climate change, countries are racing to adapt to the changing conditions and reduce their vulnerability. However, adaptation faces significant gaps and challenges, such as the lack of finance, technology, and knowledge, as well as the trade-offs and conflicts with other goals and agendas.

“It is easier to have a debate around the benefits of climate adaptation when you see the risks as real economic costs to countries,” he said.

For now, however, climate adaptation is happening slowly, especially in poor countries, which are, historically, the most affected by climate change.

You might also like: Climate Adaptation: Assessing the Progress on the Implementation of the Global Goal on Adaptation

The Tasmanian Tiger, Pyrenean Ibex, and the Western Black Rhinoceros. These familiar names heard on the nightly news and seen on animal t-shirts, social media, and blog headlines are all high-profile extinct animals lost to our planet in less than a century. The reasons behind their disappearance are complex, and solutions seem elusive, as we navigate the challenge of meeting the needs of a growing world population while maintaining critical habitats and preserving the delicate balance of our biodiverse planet. Although often considered an issue reserved for developing economies, even the US, by most measures the wealthiest country globally, has not escaped this truly complex challenge.

—

A Global Issue

The ongoing loss of habitats in the Amazon and Africa remain high-profile daily news events, typically associated with the economic needs of lesser-developed states. Similarly, the 2022 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Living Planet Report notes that the dramatic decline across Latin America and the Caribbean is notably greater than in any other region, with a 94% decrease between 1970 and 2018. 

These issues rightfully deserve attention and merit local and global resource allocation. Yet, it is startling to discover that the US, a wealthy and industrialized corner of our planet, lost over 50 species in the last century, as reported by its own Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Historic Rates of Decline

In the 20th century, an estimated 500 animal species went extinct, and today’s rate of extinction, according to the UN, is “at least tens to hundreds of times higher” than extinctions that occurred over the past 10 million years. 

The WWF reports that North America lost over 20% of its species in the past century, with the US EPA noting over 1,000 additional species in endangered or threatened status in the States alone. This represents a tragedy for such a wealthy and industrialized corner of our planet.

Species Loss in the US

• Animal populations worldwide have declined by 70% in just 50 years, according to the aforementioned WWF report.
• In 2023, US scientists declared 21 species officially extinct, including mammals, birds, mussels, and fish, with destroyed habitats identified as a key factor.
• According to an April 2023 EPA report, there are currently 1,300 US animals in endangered or threatened status.

Habitat Loss Contributes Heavily

The primary culprit is habitat loss, driven by the incessant needs of modern society that push wild residents into smaller and smaller patches of real estate, creating inevitable conflict as civilization and wild America merge.

• Ongoing pressure exists to repurpose conservation lands for profitable crops.
• Urbanization persists, transforming essential wildlife habitats into housing developments, roads, and industrial sites, even amid economic challenges.
• Water development disrupts natural flows; for instance, the Colorado River experiences depletion during dry seasons.
• Pollution disproportionately impacts freshwater ecosystems, with untreated sewage, mining waste, and chemicals concentrating in rivers and lakes.
• Climate change emerges as a growing contributor to habitat loss, affecting species in high-elevation environments and threatening coastal wildlife with rising sea levels.

You might also like: 10 of the Most Endangered Species in the US in 2024

The Economics of Habitat Loss

Habitat destruction presents a nuanced set of economic trade-offs. In the short term, activities like land clearing for agriculture and urban development yield immediate economic benefits, generating jobs, resource extraction opportunities, and infrastructure development. This can contribute to economic growth and improved living standards. Additionally, agricultural expansion addresses short-term food production needs. However, these gains come at the expense of long-term consequences.

The long-term economic trade-offs of habitat destruction include the loss of essential ecosystem services, decline in biodiversity, and increased vulnerability to climate change. The depletion of natural resources and the degradation of ecosystems pose risks to industries relying on diverse genetic resources. 

Habitat destruction may also impact tourism, and the associated health risks from zoonotic diseases can lead to substantial economic costs. Striking a balance between short-term gains and long-term sustainability is essential for mitigating these economic trade-offs and ensuring a resilient and ecologically sound future.

What’s Next?

The future is not entirely doom and gloom, but scientists agree that the time to act is now. High-level resource allocation, typically only achieved with government funding and regulation, is key. 

Landmark programs such as the watershed 50-year-old Endangered Species Act and more recent legislation are providing needed boosts to resources to turn the tide of habitat destruction.

• 2023 America the Beautiful Initiative: Recent legislation with a goal to restore, connect, and conserve 30 percent of lands and waters by 2030.
• Land and Water Conservation Und (LWCF): The fund helps strengthen communities, preserve history, and protect the national endowment of lands and waters. Since its inception in 1965, LWCF has funded $5.2 billion to support more than 45,000 projects in every county in the country. In 2020, this program received a permanent commitment of $900 milliom annually to fund conservation programs.

Accept the Challenge – Get Involved

Saving our species for future generations requires focus and a sense of urgency. We must tackle many challenges, including loss and degradation of critical habitats, over-exploitation (hunting, overfishing), introduction of invasive species, climate change, and pollution. Remember, demand accountability of those who control resources on our behalf, challenge conventional thinking on short-term economics, and most importantly, get involved – this is our challenge, together.

Featured image: USFWS Endangered Species/Flickr

You might also like: What the Updated Endangered Species Act Tells Us About the Future of Biodiversity

In a 2C global warming scenario, the risk of Category 6 storms would double in the Gulf of Mexico and increase by 50% near the Philippines.

—

The Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale, the most widely recognized risk assessment method for tropical cyclones, is no longer accurate in measuring the climate change-driven exponential increase in winds, a new paper argues.

Developed in 1971 by civil engineer Herbert Saffir and meteorologist Robert Simpson and introduced to the general public in 1973, the scale classifies hurricanes into five categories based on their sustained winds. To be classified as a hurricane, a storm must have a one-minute-average maximum sustained winds of at least 74 mph or 119 km/h (Category 1). Currently, the highest classification is assigned to storms with winds blowing at a speed of at least 157 mph or 252 km/h (Category 5). The scale also estimates the extent of potential damage to properties, infrastructure, and livelihoods, with Categories 3-5 hurricanes – also known as major hurricanes – expected to cause “devastating” to “catastrophic” damage and loss due to the strength of their winds, though it does not take potentially deadly hazards such as storm surge, rainfall flooding, and tornadoes into account.

However, a new paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) argues that the Saffir-Simpson scale needs updating to reflect the exponential increase in wind intensity witnessed in recent years. According to Michael Wehner and James Kossin, who are behind a assessment, the fact that the scale is open-ended – meaning that anything beyond 157 mph or 252 km/h is classified as Category 5 and assigned the same level of wind hazard – reflects a flaw in the system, no matter if it is blowing 160 mph (257 km/h), like 2022 Hurricane Ian in the US, or 215 mph (346 km/h), like Mexico’s 2015 Hurricane Patricia.

“What we found is that the strongest storms have become stronger because of climate change … and we thought that highlighting that reality by adding another category to the scale would raise awareness of the increased danger of climate change regarding tropical cyclones and hurricanes,” Weiner said in a radio interview with WCBS.

Hurricanes – also known as typhoons in the northwestern Pacific and cyclones in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific – are a rather common weather phenomenon, though there has been a significant increase in their intensity in recent decades, which scientific observations link to anthropogenic climate change.

These abnormal trends are attributed largely to the increased ocean temperatures – warmer than normal Atlantic waters. Indeed, as ocean surfaces warm, so does the air above it, causing water to be carried up to high altitudes to form clouds, while leaving a low pressure zone beneath causing more air to rush in. As these systems build up, thunderstorms are formed, and if there are no strong winds to slow it down, they can become hurricanes. 

A 2020 analysis of satellite records from 1979 to 2017 found that the likelihood of a storm reaching Category 3 or above, with sustained winds of 185 km/h, increased by 8% per decade. In 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) confirmed these observations, arguing that the proportion of Category 3-5 tropical cyclones as well as the frequency of rapid intensification events have likely increased globally over the past four decades.

For this reason, Wehner and Kossin suggest adding a hypothetical new category – Category 6 – to the Saffir-Simpson. The new category, they argue, would reflects changes in wind speeds, which have already been reached in a number of recent storms, all of which happened in the last decade, including Typhoon Haiyan (2013), Typhoon Meranti (2016), Typhoon Goni (2020), and Typhoon Surigae (2021) in the Western Pacific and Hurricane Patricia (2015) in the Eastern Pacific.

And with our atmosphere and oceans set to continue warming in the coming years as the climate crisis intensifies, there is little doubt that wind speeds will also progressively strengthen. In fact, Kossin and Wehner’s future climate models suggest that, in a 2C global warming scenario, the risk of Category 6 storms would double in the Gulf of Mexico and increase by 50% near the Philippines.

More on the topic: How Does Climate Change Affect Hurricanes?

In September 2021, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a government agency dedicated to the conservation, protection, and enhancement of wildlife and its habitat, declared 23 birds, fish, and other species to be extinct, and proposed to remove them from the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Experts believe these species have passed the point of recovery. The 1973 Endangered Species Act is the country’s most effective law in protecting at-risk species from extinction, with a success rate of 99%. However, persistent human activity including land conversion for agriculture and development purposes, pollution, and climate change makes it difficult for species already listed as endangered, as well as other vulnerable species, to recover and stay protected. These are just 10 of the most endangered species in the US. 

—

Endangered Species in the US

1. Red Wolf

Identifiable by its reddish fur behind their ears, neck and legs, the red wolf is the world’s most endangered wolf with only 15-17 individuals left. Once common in eastern and south central regions of the US, the red wolf was listed as a species “threatened with extinction” under the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1967, after population numbers have dropped significantly due to decades of human activity including gunshots and vehicle collisions. Under the Act, the US Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced them in eastern North Carolina to help conserve and recover the rare species.

2. Florida Panther

As the name suggests, the Florida panther is native to the state of Florida, where the remaining 100-180 individuals continue to roam in the wild. However, the wildcat, once ranged throughout the southeastern United States, now survives only in a tiny area of South Florida as a result of habitat destruction and widespread urbanisation to accommodate the growing human population. Inland development such as roads and highways also pose a danger to panthers attempting to cross the land. Since 1967, the Florida panther has been listed as an endangered species. The panthers can be spotted in forests, prairies, and swampland such as the Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. 

3. The Florida Manatee

The Florida manatee. Photo: The US Fish and Wildlife Service/Flickr

Florida is also home to another notable US endangered species: the manatee. In 1967, the manatee was among the first wildlife species to be protected under the newly-created Endangered Species Preservation Act. Thanks to decades of conservation efforts, manatee numbers have recovered to the point where the US Fish and Wildlife Service decided to de-list the species from endangered in 2017. However, recent water pollution from industry and urban development has heavily impacted its ecosystem, killing off seagrass beds – manatees’ main source of food – have led to the deaths of at least 881 manatees in Florida since the start of 2021 , far exceeding the annual average of 578 deaths between 2015 and 2020, in an occurrence  in which The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is calling an “unusual mortality event.” Scientists and environmentalists are arguing for the species to be considered endangered again. 

4. Loggerhead Sea Turtle

The Loggerhead sea turtle first joined the endangered species list in 1978 following population decline from the destruction of its beach nesting habitats and overharvesting of its eggs. The turtles are also common victims of bycatch in commercial fishing and trawling. As 95% of its US breeding population is located in Florida – though they can be also be found in South and North Carolina, and the Alabama coasts in the Gulf of Mexico – loggerhead sea turtles were heavily impacted by the development boom there, especially in recreational beach activities in which the Sunshine State is famous for. With decades of dedicated conservation efforts, the species managed to increase 24% of its population number between 1989 and 1998, with an estimated total of more than 100,000 nests each year. 

More on the topic: 7 Interesting Facts About Sea Turtles

5. California Condor

Though the bald eagle is the most recognisable bird of the prey in the US, the California condor is the largest known wild bird in North America. But it was all but extinct in the 1980s with only about six individuals left in the wild. The staggering number was a result of lead poisoning, where birds often accidentally ingest bullet fragments left in animal carcasses, and reduced eggshell thickness – which prevents the species to repopulate – from consuming pesticide DDT. The remaining six condors were then captured for an intensive breeding recovery programme, which helped boost population numbers up to 223 by 2003. 

6. Mississippi Gopher Frog

It’s estimated that there are fewer than 100-250 dusky gopher frogs left in the US, all of which can only be found in the state of Mississippi, from stump holes and burrows in longleaf pine forests – though 98% of America’s native longleaf-pine forest has since been destroyed – to isolated wetlands. The frogs lay eggs in shallow ponds that easily dries up for several months of the year, which deters fish from ingesting them. The amphibian was listed as an endangered species in 2001, where the US Fish and Wildlife Service designated over 7,000 acres of protected critical habitat in Mississippi and Louisiana to help its population recovery. 

7. San Joaquin Kit Fox

San Joaquin kit fox. Photo: Carley Sweet/USFWS/Flickr

San Joaquin kit foxes are about 51 cm long with​ big conspicuous ears, and are the smallest foxes in North America. As the name suggests, the fox inhabited much of California’s San Joaquin Valley prior to 1930 but like most endangered species, they’ve been threatened by extensive habitat loss and land conversion for agriculture and cities, as well as rodenticides in soil, which are crucial to kit fox burrows and denning. By 1979, less than 7% of the valley’s original wildlands remained undeveloped. Though it was listed as an endangered species in 1967, the kit fox population remains fewer than 7,000. 

8. Franklin’s Bumblebee

The Franklin’s bumblebee has not been sighted since 2006. One of the rarest bumblebees in the US, the species can only be found between southern Oregon and northern California. Population numbers have plummeted since 1998 due to habitat loss, widespread use of agricultural pesticides, as well as diseases transported through commercial greenhouses. Though the species is only listed as a “species of concern” with no conservation measures currently in place, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) described the bee as “imperilled”, stating that the species’ population has dropped to dangerously low levels.

You might also like: The American Bumblebee Population Has Dropped By 90% Within 20 Year

9. Black-Footed Ferret

Black-footed ferret. Photo: J. Michael Lockhart/USFWS/Flickr.

This adorable member of the weasel family is an animal that not only has black feet, but a black face mask and a black-tipped tail as well. Black-footed ferrets are the only ferret species native to the Americas and depend exclusively on prairie dog burrows for food and shelter. Conversion of native grasslands to agricultural land, widespread prairie dog eradication programmes, and non-native disease have all reduced black-footed ferret populations to less than 2% of their original range. Since falling under the protection of the Endangered Species Act in 1967 and captive breeding programmes, the black-footed ferret has recovered to close to 340 individuals in the wild. 

10. Lange’s Metalmark Butterfly

Lange’s metalmark butterfly is one of the most endangered species in the US and has been protected since 1976. They can only be found in the Antioch Dunes at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. The population of the butterfly has dived to just 45 in 2006, compared to its 250,000 in historic times because of habitat loss and degradation, the mining of sand for bricks, and the invasion of non-native plants.  Currently, there are only about 150 individuals remaining.

You might also like: 10 of the World’s Most Endangered Animals in 2023

The US began exporting liquified natural gas (LNG) in 2016 and is currently the world’s largest exporter of the planet-warming fuel.

—

The Biden administration announced on Friday a “temporary” pause on pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export permits to allow the Department of Energy (DOE) to review their economic and environmental impacts.

The pause will allow officials to update the way the DOE analyzes LNG proposals to avoid authorizing projects that diminish the country’s energy availability, weaken security, or undermine the US economy and environment, according to a statement by the White House. 

“This pause on new LNG approvals sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time,” the statement read.

The decision, which impacts a dozen planned gas export terminals, follows a months-long campaign by climate activists and local residents to curb LNG exports, which contribute to global warming and air pollution. In October 2023, former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official Jeremy Symons told the Guardian that current planned terminals could result in an additional yearly 3.2 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases (GHG) – approximately the equivalent of the European Union’s annual emissions. 

The US began exporting LNG in 2016 and in 2023, it became the world’s largest exporter, owing to overall increased processing efficiency as well as the return to full production of the Freeport LNG plant, which had suffered a fire in 2022. Yearly exports from the US last year hit a record high of 88.9 million metric tons, up 14.7% from the year prior, and are expected to double by the end of this decade.

The majority of exports last year went to European countries that were battling with the ongoing energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In a fact sheet, the White House reassured the pause “will not impact [the US] ability to continue supplying LNG to [its] allies in the near-term” as projects that have already been approved will go ahead as planned. 

In a letter addressed to US DOE Secretary Jennifer Granholm, a coalition of oil and gas industry groups opposing the decision said a pause on US LNG export approvals “would only bolster Russian influence and undercut President Biden’s own commitment to supply our allies with reliable energy, undermining American credibility and threatening American jobs.”

Several environmental and advocacy groups praised the announcement.

“This announcement from the Biden administration is truly monumental for our communities,” said Roishetta Ozane, an environmental activist and founder and director of the Louisiana-based mutual aid organization Vessel Project in Louisiana, where much of the LNG buildout is happening. “As someone who has witnessed the devastating impacts of fossil fuel extractive industries, I am filled with hope and gratitude for this important step towards justice.”

An area of Louisiana covering an 85-mile (137-kilometre) stretch along the Mississippi River, from New Orleans to Baton Rougel, where communities exist side by side with some 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical plants, has been nicknamed “Cancer Alley.” The term is not only jarring in its sound but it also detrimentally changed the way residents live their lives.

According to a report by Human Rights Watch released last week, Louisiana residents suffer serious health issues – including elevated rates and risks of maternal, reproductive, and newborn health harms, cancer, and respiratory ailments – as a result of the extreme pollution created by the industry, with some parts of Cancer Alley seeing the highest risk of cancer from industrial air pollution in the US.

The report found that fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities account for a staggering 97% of the risks to human health from industrial air pollution in Louisiana.

“The fossil fuel and petrochemical industry has created a ‘sacrifice zone’ in Louisiana,” said Antonia Juhasz, senior researcher on fossil fuels at Human Rights Watch. “The failure of state and federal authorities to properly regulate the industry has dire consequences for residents of Cancer Alley.”

You might also like: US Ends Cancer Alley Investigation: Will Environmental Racism Ever Find Justice?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities have been preventing carbon dioxide from being added to the atmosphere since the early 1970s. While interest in the establishment of such facilities has grown, the process by which this is accomplished is problematically time-consuming. Earth.Org spoke to researchers Granger Morgan and Valerie Karplus from the Carnegie Mellon University’s College of Engineering who, alongside graduate student Emily Moore, completed a scientific assessment of the time required to develop, approve, and implement a CCS facility in the US, while also providing suggestions as to how to streamline the process.

—

The Problem With Carbon Capture Facilities

During the 1920s, when the collection of natural gas was still a procedure in its early years, carbon capture was invented as a means of separating carbon dioxide (CO2) from the saleable methane gas. The CO2 would then either be released into the air or captured and stored. 

Today, this process is known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and, while it is still used in the oil refinement industry, the technology seems to have found itself a redeeming foothold within the field of conservation.

More on the topic: The Feasibility and Future of Carbon Capture and Storage Technology

With 40 CCS facilities in operation around the globe, approximately 45 metric tons (Mt) of CO2 is prevented from entering the atmosphere every year. This amount is only expected to increase as 50 more facilities will be operational by the end of the decade.

Though this number may seem large, it could be even larger, were it not for the long and arduous process behind the establishment of one of these carbon capture facilities; an issue that many experts, as well as worried stakeholders, have taken serious note of. 

Take researchers Granger Morgan, Valerie Karplus, and Emily Moore for example. 

After observing a need for a CCS facility in their own tri-state region of southwest Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, the three researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University’s College of Engineering determined an estimation of the time required to develop, approve, and implement a CCS facility within the United States. They found a 90% probability that the amount of time associated with site operational approval can be anywhere between 5.5 and 9.6 years, though in the more extreme cases, the time frame can be pushed forward by as far as 12 years, an amount of time deemed far too long to meet the nation’s ambitious climate goals set at this year’s UN climate summit, COP28.

“From a policy perspective we found that as things stand, the timelines are long. And if we want this to make a big difference, speeding up those timelines could really help us get our arms around the climate problem a lot faster,” Karplus told Earth.Org. 

Though carbon storage is not a solution to climate change but rather a tool that can be used to mitigate it, estimates say that carbon capture alone could achieve 14% of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction required by 2050, and could even put the US on track to achieve its 2050 net-zero goal. The country also committed to an interim target of 65% reduction in GHG by 2030, which may prove difficult to achieve without the assistance of CCS technology.

“We’ve heard reports, for example, at various meetings we go to that this was emerging as a serious problem. And we understood that the White House and the Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA were talking with each other about trying to speed it up,” explained Morgan. “This is not something that just sort of came out of thin air.” 

Streamlining the Approval Process

The paper clarifies that the approval process itself is divided into six main checkpoints, what they refer to as clearance points: time to locate site(s), time to prepare selected site, time for approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), time to resolve any legal challenge, time to build well and pipeline, and time for injection authorization. In addition, there are seven strategies emphasized near the end of the paper (and summarized below)  that may assist in shortening each of these clearance points.

1. Pre-vet sites

The government at both the state and federal level could assess the more promising sequestration sites on land they own in order to prepare a set of pre-vetted sets. In respect to land they do not own, they could provide incentives to private landowners who choose to host CCS sites. 

2. Reduce Barriers to multi-state coordination

In the Eastern United States, CCS infrastructure often crosses state boundaries. Eliminating any potential barriers to multi-state coordination ahead of time is likely to reduce the risk of any delays in the future. 

3. Develop guidance on landowner compensation

In regards to compensation, there is still a significant level of uncertainty for private landowners who choose to host CCS sites. If the DOE were to develop a standard, delays due to ambiguity could be avoided. 

4. Early and transparent community engagement

In order to minimize any potential objections from the community, engaging with them earlier may be advantageous. The paper also mentions that early engagement does not guarantee public support, and that they should prepare and present their organizational models to feel more like public utilities and less like private industry if they hope to gain public support. 

5. Legal framework to help minimize litigation

The researchers mention that most new developments are opposed, regardless of their potential benefits. They advise that employing legal counsel to anticipate any objections that could occur in the future would assist in reducing the overall time associated with CCS site establishment. 

6. Assess and facilitate state primacy application

As stated in their paper, the researchers found that granting state primacy “may, but would not necessarily, speed up the permitting process.”  

When state primacy is achieved, the state in question is given the ability to carry out EPA’s authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (Class VI review) in approving a specific permit. This includes the establishment of a CCS facility. Though this may streamline the process, the researchers suggest that if a particular state intends to achieve state primacy, they should be fully versed on what that entails, otherwise they may only cause further delays.

7. Strengthen EPA and state-level staffing

Whether the Class VI review is accomplished by the EPA or the State, the researchers determined that approval “[depends] heavily on the number of staff performing reviews,” and that a strengthening of said staff would significantly reduce delays.

Karplus pointed out that of the seven strategies, strengthening EPA and state-level staffing should be considered a priority. “We looked at a lot of steps in the process and we found that indeed, one of the bottlenecks is the local state capacity,” she said.

“All of these steps take time and reducing any of them will help. However, one way to further accelerate the process safely could be to reinforce the EPA Regional Offices in their capacity to review permit applications.”

CCS Tax Incentives in the US

It should also be noted that if project developers responsible for carbon capture facilities are unable to navigate this process in time they may not be eligible for a significant tax incentive. 

Known as the Section 45Q CCS Tax Credit of the Biden Administration’s historic 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – the largest climate investment in US history, this performance-based tax credit reserved for carbon management programs that capture carbon oxides is set to expire by the end of 2032. 

“Right now you’re looking at 6 to 10 years and up to 12 years, potentially, to get through all of these regulatory steps. Said Karplus.  

“If you’re not anticipating that, or if you’re not focused on accelerating that timeframe, then you may have trouble with the [development of your project].” 

You might also like: 3 Carbon Capture Technologies We Must Scale Up to Meet Net Zero

Researchers used AI to analyze over 12,000 YouTube videos with tens of millions of views containing climate misinformation and disinformation. They found that a wave of “new denial” narratives made up 70% of denial claims on the video sharing platform in 2023.

—

From claims that renewable energy and electric vehicles will not work to arguments undermining public trust in climate research and scientists, online climate denialism and misinformation are dangerously on the rise and are taking on a new form, according to a new major study published on Tuesday.

The Center for Countering Digital Have (CCDH), a non-profit that monitors online hate speech, used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze the text transcripts of 12,058 climate-related YouTube videos from the last six years containing what researchers labelled as “new denial” arguments. The study concluded that Google-owned online video sharing platform YouTube is making huge profits from videos containing climate falsehoods, breaching its own policy on climate misinformation.

New denial arguments – which the study argues constituted about 70% of all claims on YouTube in 2023 – focus more on denying the impacts of climate change and undermining solutions rather than on pushing the narrative that global warming is not happening or it is not a direct cause of human activities. They include claims that climate change impacts are harmless or beneficial, direct attacks to the scientific community over the unreliability of climate research, and arguments aimed at discouraging the shift to cleaner sources of energy. Researchers found that the latter category, and particularly claims against wind, solar, electric vehicles (EVs) and other green technologies, dominate the “new denial” by a large margin.

Among the most common false arguments about clean energy are claims that EVs create three times more emissions than gas cars when manufacturing is considered, that transitioning to wind power will devastate wildlife habitats and forests, and that weather-dependent renewables lead to blackouts.

More on the topic: Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment 

The study concluded that YouTube is potentially making up to $13.4 million in ad revenue per year from the 96 channels analysed in the report, a “drop in the bucket” for its giant owner Google but a huge threat to the future of our planet, as CCDH’s CEO Imran Ahmed put it. 

“Outright climate denial has become as untenable as smoking inside a hospital emergency room. But CCDH’s investigation exposes the new tactics that have metastasized in recent years: delay, deflection, and bogus attacks on solutions like offshore wind,” said Charlie Cray, senior strategist at Greenpeace USA.

US Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse called climate denialism a “foul choice,” adding that “the stakes are too high to be – even at this late hour – aiding and abetting polluters’ ‘new and improved’ climate disinformation narratives.”

Past Allegations

It is not the first time that YouTube has come under fire for allowing and profiting from videos and ads that reject mainstream climate science. 

In October 2021, Google updated its existing rules on ads on climate change by introducing a new monetisation policy for Google advertisers, publishers, and YouTube creators that would “prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around … climate change,” following the publication of a CCDH report on how Google and Facebook monetized climate denial content.   

However, a 2023 study by CCDH and the Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) coalition identified 200 examples of YouTube videos containing climate misinformation and disinformation, which collectively serve ads to over 73 million viewers, demonstrating that Google had once again failed to keep its promise.

This week’s study presents further evidence that the company is not doing enough to counteract climate disinformation. CCDH argues that, while existing policies are efficient in preventing monetisation of “old denial” narratives, they fail to cover the new wave of online climate disinformation. According to the watchdog, legal action and financial pressure on tech companies may further push them to take serious action against climate falsehoods, though updating Google’s existing policy to reflect “new denial” arguments should be the priority.

You might also like: More than 2,000 Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Granted Access to COP28 Climate Talks

In November 2023, Heirloom Carbon Technologies, a US-based climate company, unveiled its direct air capture facility in Tracy, California. The plant will remove up to 1,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere annually. While early in operation, the facility and its technology represent exciting advancements in the field of carbon capture, a critical part to preventing passing the 1.5C global warming threshold. 

—

Carbon Capture and Storage

Direct air capture (DAC) is a rapidly developing field and is one of three main methods for carbon capture, usage, and storage (CCS or CCUS). The two more established CCS methods are pre-combustion and post-combustion capture. 

Pre-combustion capture separates carbon dioxide from a refined gas mixture prior to its combustion and use for energy production. Pre-combustion capture is more expensive than post-combustion capture and is harder to retrofit existing plants, however, it produces a more concentrated stream of CO2 and prevents carbon dioxide combustion pollutants from being released. Post-combustion carbon capture involves capturing CO2 from flue gas, also called “Stack” or exhaust gas, before it exits a plant and is released to the atmosphere. Post-combustion capture technology is much easier to retrofit to existing plants, though the recovery of CO2 is much more inefficient and requires higher energy inputs to achieve storage. 

You might also like: Explainer: What Is Carbon Capture and Sequestration?

Direct Air Capture

Direct air capture (DAC) removes CO2 from the atmosphere, compared to pre- and post-combustion, which prevents its release, and makes it available for storage or reuse. DAC often uses chemically absorbent materials for CO2. However, these often have significantly high costs, anywhere from $7,000 to $100,000 per metric tonne, according to an operational report from Heirloom. 

Heirloom’s California plant uses a natural process that uses limestone, calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and recurring cycles of heating and carbonation to achieve cost effective atmospheric carbon dioxide capture, resulting in significantly lower costs for absorbent material. Limestone can be purchased for as low as $10 per tonne.

The flowchart above shows how calcium carbonate in limestone can be reused in a naturally occurring cyclical pattern, reducing the need for new material, and greatly reducing waste from the process. 

Heirloom’s new process has accelerated carbonization of Ca(OH)₂ from the literature benchmark of two weeks down to three days. Heirloom’s facility also uses modularity, or separated units of CO2 collection stacks, allowing for extraction to continue even if a unit experiences a disruption or difficulty. 

Heirloom has partnered with another climate startup, CarbonCure Technologies, to store the CO2 extracted in its facility in long-term infrastructure materials like concrete. The new facility is also carbon negative, as the facility itself and the kiln used in heating are running off of 100% renewable energy. 

The current average cost for carbon capture credits is between US$600-$1,000 per tonne. Heirloom is aiming for their carbon credits to cost only $100 by 2035, supported by recent investments into direct air capture from subsidies and tax credits through the US government.

You might also like: 3 Carbon Capture Technologies We Must Scale Up to Meet Net Zero

The Future of Direct Air Capture

Following investments that came as part of the 2023 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the US Department of Energy announced funding for two DAC facilities capable of removing 1 million tonnes of CO2 annually. This removal capacity would be 1,000 times higher than Heirloom’s California facility and represents the removal capacity that will be needed at several more facilities across the globe by mid-century to meet current climate goals. 

While investment into DAC is important to achieve project scaling and substantial increases in extraction capacity worldwide, direct air capture and other carbon capture technologies alone will not deliver the net zero carbon future we need. Global decarbonization and drastically cutting greenhouse gas emissions is still the main way to reach a more sustainable system. DAC alone would not be able to compensate for the rising amount of greenhouse gas emissions. 

There are also concerns with some of the funding and storage aspects of DAC. Without strong policies to regulate the use of carbon removal credits, some conservationists fear that rather than lower their emissions, emitting companies will just buy removal credits to “offset” their emissions, which achieves little to no progress towards translational shifts of net zero operations. 

There are also fears over the long-term geologic impacts of injecting extracted CO2 into geologic reserves underground for sequestration. With more development DAC, however, can be a highly impactful assisting technology that could turn back the greenhouse gas “timetable,” and reduce global atmospheric CO₂ levels, once net zero has been reached. Advancements in direct air capture represent how ingenuity and dedication above all, are the strongest tools we have in the fight against climate change and its impacts.

You might also like: Is Carbon Offset a Form of Greenwashing?

In the grand theater of climate action, the US state of California takes center stage, captivating the world with groundbreaking plans for net-zero carbon pollution, innovative environmental initiatives, and a role in shaping global efforts to combat climate change.
_

During the Climate Ambition Summit in New York in September 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom uniquely represented the US, underlining his state’s commitment to addressing climate change and urging the oil industry to take decisive steps toward a carbon-free and sustainable future. It was particularly timely when Newsom voiced concerns about the evident consequences of climate change in California, which this year has been ravaged by severe wildfires, storms, and droughts.

Forging a Global Path to Net-Zero and Beyond

In 2022, Newsom spearheaded a groundbreaking climate plan for California – “the great implementation” as he called it – to help the state achieve net zero carbon pollution by 2045. The ambitious plan includes a 85% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 94% cut in oil consumption, and the creation of 4 million jobs. The proposed Scoping Plan, a global standard for carbon neutrality, focuses on renewables, clean buildings, and carbon removal, promising a pollution-free future, significant air pollution reduction, and US$200 billion in health cost savings. The plan also sets goals for offshore wind, climate-friendly homes, heat pumps, and sustainable aviation, signaling a transformative shift toward a cleaner and more sustainable state.

In the past two years, California accelerated its transition to a 100% clean energy grid, witnessed the first West Coast offshore wind lease sale, and enacted laws to ban new oil drilling near schools. Newsom held Big Oil accountable for price hikes, and the California Air Resources Board approved a ban on sales of fossil fuel-powered vehicles by 2035. Consequently, a significant milestone was reached this summer, with one in four new cars sold in California being zero-emission. The state also launched the clean vehicle rebate program to assist low-income residents in switching to electric cars. 

You might also like: Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment

California reveals an all-encompassing roadmap towards carbon neutrality, aiming to preserve natural beauty, wildlife, and handling challenges posed by extreme heat, droughts, and wildfires. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fuels Reduction Projects recently encompassed fire prevention activities across nearly 34,000 acres.

The targets illustrate California’s aspirations to be a net-zero leader, not just within the US but on a global scale. California’s exceptional performance in confronting climate change, amidst various social and economic challenges, positions the state distinctively compared to the rest of the country. 

Governor Newsom’s ambitious goals put the state as a frontrunner in the international drive toward carbon neutrality. This commitment goes beyond national impact, showcasing California’s dedication to leading the way in confronting climate change worldwide. This was evident during the governor’s trip to China in October 2023, where he remarked: “We’re moving markets nationally and globally. That’s an example of California punching above its weight.” 

Historical Background of Eco-Revolution

California’s environmental commitment, as acknowledged by Newsom in his UN Climate Ambition Summit speech, traces back to the roots planted by Ronald Reagan in 1967. As a conservative governor, Reagan initiated the modern American environmental movement, birthing the California Air Resources Board and pioneering the first regulations on tailpipe emissions in the nation. 

Richard Nixon further solidified this trajectory in 1970 with the formalization of these efforts through the Clean Air Act. We can also extend the recognition to former governors, including Jerry Brown, a proponent of rooftop solar, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, credited with crafting the nation’s pioneering law that mandated greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and established tailpipe emissions regulations, setting a national standard. The echoes of their legacy resonate as Newsom lauds the historical foundation that has shaped the state’s environmental leadership.

California has been at the forefront of global climate action, implementing a suite of programs since 2000 to reduce statewide emissions. These efforts, such as the cap-and-trade program, have resulted in positive outcomes. In 2017, the state’s greenhouse gas emissions were 424.1 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, slightly below the 2020 target of 431 million tons. To meet the 2030 target of 260 million tons per year (40% below 1990 levels), California needs to reduce emissions by an additional 170 million tons. 

The state’s visionary goals have not only driven effective policies but also inspired an international coalition against climate change at the subnational level. Additional challenges, from methane emissions to plastic production, are being managed through persistent efforts across various policy areas.

California, facing a record heatwave this summer, stands out as a local climate action model amid stalled international actions. Most of the residents support the state’s global climate leadership. Despite partisan differences, there is widespread belief in the urgency of grappling with climate change’s local impact. In February, the Public Institute of California conducted a survey revealing that three out of four Californians believe immediate action is necessary to counter the effects of climate change. While Californians endorse emission reduction policies, personal willingness to make changes varies. 

In this year’s final budget agreement, Newsom and the Legislature have demonstrated a strong commitment to climate projects by retaining over US$50 billion. This allocation is part of the originally established budgets for 2021 and 2022, showcasing large financing for approaching climate challenges and advancing environmental initiatives. Additionally, the budget includes a multiyear commitment to transition away from fossil fuels, with the possibility of billions more being considered for a climate bond in 2024.

Reaching New Heights

From this year major global companies doing business in California will be obligated to monitor and disclose nearly all their GHG emissions, covering supply chains, business travel, employee commutes, and product usage. On October 7, 2023, Newsom signed two new laws. 

The first, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, mandates US companies with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion to disclose both direct and indirect GHG emissions from 2026 and 2027. This means that oil and gas giants such as Chevron may need to track emissions from vehicles using their gasoline, while tech companies such as Apple must account for materials involved in the production of their products. Despite opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce, major corporations such as Microsoft, Apple, Salesforce, and Patagonia endorsed the regulation. 

The second law, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act, compels companies with $500 million or more in revenue to report financial risks associated with climate change and their risk mitigation plans.

During a fireside chat with Hong Kong University vice-president Gong Peng in his October trip to China, Newsom supported China’s green technology development efforts and discussed shared climate challenges with Hong Kong, highlighting California’s proactive stance despite being the world’s fifth-largest economy and a fossil fuel state with frequent wildfires and high air pollution levels.

You might also like: 4 Factors Affecting Air Pollution in California

In the newly published 2023 edition of California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory from 2000 to 2021, among other major trends, key highlights reveal a 4.1% decrease in GHG emissions intensity, even as the state experienced a 7.8% growth in GDP between 2020 and 2021.

As part of the recent landmark global agreement to “transition away” from fossil fuels reached at COP28 in Dubai, California is actively channeling substantial investments into renewable energy initiatives like electric vehicles and offshore wind power. A delegation from the state, comprising administration officials and legislators, attended the UN conference, with California Natural Resources Agency Secretary Wade Crowfoot lauding the development as “obviously needed” but yet the first measure.

Among the state’s most recent actions also stands the California Water Resources Control Board adopting cutting-edge rules that allow the conversion of sewage into drinking water, known as “toilet to tap,” to tackle water scarcity concerns intensified by climate change, featuring direct potable reuse for enhanced water quality. 

Another initiative is the Organics Grant Program under California Climate Investments advancing the state’s climate goals by preventing 7.7 million tons of organic waste from releasing methane. Newsom’s office also launches plenty of climate resilience projects throughout the state, aimed at assisting local communities and protecting agricultural lands.

Conclusion

California stands tall on the global stage as an example of how dedication to climate action can spark significant change. Under Governor Newsom’s leadership, the state is just setting a prolific standard for others to follow. California’s approach, blending forward-thinking governance, economic clout, and adaptability, positions it as a trailblazer, demonstrating that even when grappling with local environmental adversities, subnational entities can spearhead efforts toward a sustainable and resilient future. Beyond regional borders, California’s climate story is a powerful testament of how collective efforts on a smaller scale can ripple into global initiatives, showcasing the impact of united action on the world’s most pressing environmental challenges.

Featured image: Office of Governor Gavin Newsom

You might also like: Top 6 Environmental Issues in the US in 2024

The 20 costliest climate disasters of 2023 disproportionately affected developing countries that have less economic resources and lack adequate infrastructure to withstand natural calamities.

—

Low-income, small countries are more prone to experience economically costly disasters, a new analysis of the costliest climate disasters of 2023 has found.

The study, carried out by Christian Aid and published Wednesday, looked at the top 20 costliest climate disasters of 2023 across 14 countries, including floods, storms, droughts, and wildfires, and found that the relative economic impact of these disasters is “highly unequal.” 

Indeed, wealthier countries that have enough resources to prepare and adapt for potential future extreme weather events are better off than poorer countries, which often lack adequate infrastructure to withstand and financial resources to bounce back after a disaster. In the latter, not only is the death toll generally higher but recovery is also much slower. What’s more, we are witnessing a “double injustice” – as the study puts it – since the countries most prone to extreme weather events are those who contribute the least to global warming in the first place.

The per capita cost of this year’s disasters ranged from more than US$4,000 for those affected by the devastating Maui wildfires in August – which led to 181 casualties, the displacement of more than 7,000 people, and around $6 billion in total economic costs – to $9 due to the flooding that hit Peru in April. Among the list also figure Guam’s May storm, which affected over 60% of the territory’s population and cost about $1,455 per capita, and Libya’s devastating September floods unleashed by Storm Daniel, which killed more than 11,000 people and displaced more than 1 million people, over 10% of the country’s total population.

At COP28 earlier this month, countries finally agreed on a framework to operationalise the long awaited Loss and Damage Fund agreed upon last year, committing a total of more than $700 million, including more than $300 million from the European Union (EU), $100 from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), $50 million from the UK, $17.5 million from the US, and $10 million from Japan. Nevertheless, critics pointed out that contributions to the Fund represent less than 0.2% of the economic and non-economic losses developing countries face every year from global warming, adding pressure to developed nations to enhance their contributions and provide additional pledges in line with their historical responsibility for loss and damage.

“Loss and damage costs are in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually in developing countries alone. Wealthy nations must commit the new and additional money required to ensure the Loss and Damage Fund agreed at COP28 can quickly get help to those that need it most,” said Nushrat Chowdhury, Christian Aid’s Climate Justice Policy Advisor.

You might also like: Explainer: What Is Loss and Damage Compensation?

The study comes as scientists confirm that 2023 was the hottest year in history, after record-breaking temperatures this past summer. For years, experts have warned that global warming will inevitably increase the frequency and intensity of climate disasters, adding pressure to governments around the world to take decisive action to achieve the Paris Agreement 1.5C goal and adapt to the rapidly unfolding effects of climate change.

“Governments urgently need to take further action at home and internationally, to cut emissions, and adapt to the effects of climate change,” said Patrick Watt, chief executive of Christian Aid. “And where the impacts go beyond what people can adapt to, the loss and damage fund must be resourced to compensate the poorest countries for the effects of a crisis that isn’t of their making.”

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons