Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How Some Common Medications Can Make People More Vulnerable to Heat

News Feed
Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Summers are undoubtedly getting hotter. Extreme heat events are predicted to become longer, more intense and more frequent in the coming years—and rising temperatures are already taking a toll on the human body. A published last month by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that heat-related emergency room visits were substantially higher from May to September 2023 than in any year before. And now growing evidence suggests that people who rely on certain medications, notably including antipsychotics, may become especially vulnerable to heat-related illness and adverse side effects as temperatures climb.Studies have established that people with chronic illnesses such as schizophrenia, diabetes and cardiovascular or respiratory disease are generally more vulnerable to overheating—and the medications they need may actually worsen these risks. A 2020 PLOS ONE study found that various commonly prescribed drugs interfere with the body’s ability to perceive and protect itself from heat, increasing the risk of hospitalization. These include diuretics, antipsychotics, beta-blockers, stimulants, antihypertensives and anticholinergic medications (which include Parkinson’s and bladder-control medications). Illicit use of amphetamines and some other drugs, including unlicensed weight-loss drugs such as dinitrophenol, can alter body temperature.“There are a lot of drugs out there that diminish our ability to radiate off heat and cool down,” says Adam Blumenberg, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Columbia University Medical Center. Emergency room visits for medication-related heat stress or illness, also known as drug-induced hyperthermia, are still relatively rare—but Blumenberg says this will likely change as heat waves and record-breaking temperatures continue to increase.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The human body’s built-in “thermostat” system works to maintain an internal temperature between 97 and 99 degrees Fahrenheit (36 and 37 degrees Celsius), Blumenberg says, adding that a body temperature of more than 104 degrees F (40 degrees C) can be life-threatening. The brain structure called the hypothalamus helps orchestrate processes to keep that core temperature stable when the weather gets too hot. It acts on the autonomic nervous system, which is responsible for keeping the body in homeostasis via many important processes, including heart rate, blood pressure and respiration. The hypothalamus also regulates sweating and dilates blood vessels in the skin, arms, feet and face to dissipate body heat—and it can cause a sensation of discomfort that prompts the body to seek out shade, water or rest.Experts say many medications associated with drug-induced hyperthermia have one factor in common: they’re anticholinergic. These drugs block cells’ receptors from binding to a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine, which plays an important role in the autonomic nervous system and its heat-adjustment responses, such as perspiration. Blocking its action can cause dry mouth and urinary retention—feeling a need to urinate but being unable to do so. “Some of these medications might cause more heat sensitivity because you’re not sweating,” says Vicki Ellingrod, dean of the University of Michigan College of Pharmacy. “Your body is not making the secretions that it should be making.” Anticholinergics can also causeflushed skin, dilated pupils, blurred vision, fever and an altered mental state. Clinicians have historically used a mnemonic about these symptoms to diagnose anticholinergic poisoning.“A lot of drugs have mild anticholinergic properties, even if that’s not their main intent as a drug,” Blumenberg says. For example, some allergy medications primarily block a cell’s histamine receptors—but they might also bind to other receptors as well and thus still produce anticholinergic effects.Some antipsychotics and neuroleptics (first-generation antipsychotics) can also lead to this and can create a dopamine-blocking effect as well. Dopamine—often called the “feel-good” hormone—influences motivation, memory and even body movement; blocking it can make people feel stiff and cause problems with gait, balance and muscles. One way to decrease those side effects is by pairing an antipsychotic with an anticholinergic—further interfering with acetylcholine and potentially disrupting heat regulation. People who take the antipsychotic drug haloperidol for schizophrenia, for example, are often prescribed an anticholinergic drug called benztropine that decreases some adverse side effects but can, on rare occasions, elevate internal temperature. This shouldn’t happen if people take the appropriate prescribed dose, Blumenberg says, “but it’s possible.”Antipsychotic medications, as well as medications commonly prescribed for bipolar disorder, depression and insomnia, typically act on the brain, which means they could potentially influence the neural pathways that control temperature. Some older antipsychotics are known to occasionally cause a severe reaction called neuroleptic malignant syndrome, which impacts the body’s ability to thermoregulate, Ellingrod notes. “Now, with our newer medications, it’s not as common. But maybe with the impact of the climate, it’s going to be more common,” she says.New research into psychiatric disorders has rapidly improved existing treatments and led to new strategies to reduce some of the adverse side effects; such steps include pairing antipsychotics with other medications. But responses to medications can still vary from person to person. Additionally, “the degree in which [these drugs] actually block the acetylcholine receptors varies between medications, which is why you can see one drug in a class really having this [anticholinergic] effect and another drug in the same class not having the same effect,” Ellingrod says. For example, she adds, the antihistamines that cause more drowsiness tend to be more anticholinergic because they can cross the blood-brain barrier. Newer antihistamines have side effects that are less sedating and very rarely disrupt thermoregulation.A 2023 study in the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology found that most heat-related adverse effects were reported for medications that act on the nervous system (such as drugs that have strong anticholinergic effects), followed by medications that modulate the immune system. People on heart medications might face thermoregulation complications under high environmental temperatures, too. A 2022 study in Nature Cardiovascular Researchfound that people taking beta-blockers and antiplatelet medications for cardiovascular conditions have a higher risk of experiencing a heart attack in hot weather.“Beta-receptor blockers could decrease the heart rate [and] reduce the blood flow to the skin. That makes people more vulnerable to heat exposure,” says Kai Chen, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health and a co-author of the 2022 study. “The same goes for the [antiplatelet drugs], like aspirin. People taking that could increase core body temperature during passive heat stress, which will make them more vulnerable.”Chen notes that his study is based only on a small group of German participants. But he and his team are conducting studies to analyze these effects in bigger cohorts in the U.S., and they expect results in a couple of years. “We’re trying to see if this enhanced heat effect on these certain medications is due to the medication itself or due to the preexisting conditions,” he says. “If we can confirm through multiple studies at multiple locations with different populations that this is not a mere correlation or association and can maybe indicate a causation, then I think that will change how physicians advise the patients taking the medication during heat waves.”Soko Setoguchi, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and a co-author of the 2020 PLOS ONE study, says there is a growing effort to understand how drugs are affected by extreme heat—because any medication can have unintended effects, and there is still “limited evidence” on how heat influences various drug interactions.“The precise temperature threshold for these side effects to occur is not explicitly defined in the provided studies, as heat sensitivity can vary based on individual health status, medication dosage and specific environmental conditions,” Setoguchi says, adding that comprehensive data from larger trials are needed.The Food and Drug Administration monitors drugs’ safety even after they are approved, but it has not been tracking heat-related issues associated with medications. “If newly identified safety signals are identified,” the agency wrote in an e-mail to Scientific American, “the FDA will determine what, if any, actions are appropriate after a thorough review of available data.”Scientific American requested comment from 10 major pharmaceutical companies that make antipsychotic medications, but only one, Lundbeck, had responded by the time of publication. A spokesperson said in an e-mail that the company hasn’t “observed any side effects linked to weather conditions such as hot weather in relation to the use of antipsychotics. However, certain labels may mention side effects like flushing, tremor, and hyperthermia, which are linked to [medications that act on serotonin] and can resemble symptoms associated with hot weather.” (Serotonin is a hormone involved in temperature regulation.)Ultimately, some medications that can induce heat-related side effects are still necessary for treating certain conditions. Experts recommend consulting with physicians about potentially adjusting doses or scheduling and alerting a health care provider if any irregular reactions occur as the weather warms. Additionally, people taking medications known to produce an anticholinergic effect should be aware of strategies to keep cool. These can include staying hydrated, carrying fans or ice packs and seeking shade or air-conditioning. Until more research results emerge, clinicians and their patients should discuss best options for prescriptions—and ways to prepare for hotter days.

As climate change brings more intense heat waves, scientists are trying to understand how certain medications interact with the body’s thermoregulation system

Summers are undoubtedly getting hotter. Extreme heat events are predicted to become longer, more intense and more frequent in the coming years—and rising temperatures are already taking a toll on the human body. A published last month by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that heat-related emergency room visits were substantially higher from May to September 2023 than in any year before. And now growing evidence suggests that people who rely on certain medications, notably including antipsychotics, may become especially vulnerable to heat-related illness and adverse side effects as temperatures climb.

Studies have established that people with chronic illnesses such as schizophrenia, diabetes and cardiovascular or respiratory disease are generally more vulnerable to overheating—and the medications they need may actually worsen these risks. A 2020 PLOS ONE study found that various commonly prescribed drugs interfere with the body’s ability to perceive and protect itself from heat, increasing the risk of hospitalization. These include diuretics, antipsychotics, beta-blockers, stimulants, antihypertensives and anticholinergic medications (which include Parkinson’s and bladder-control medications). Illicit use of amphetamines and some other drugs, including unlicensed weight-loss drugs such as dinitrophenol, can alter body temperature.

“There are a lot of drugs out there that diminish our ability to radiate off heat and cool down,” says Adam Blumenberg, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Columbia University Medical Center. Emergency room visits for medication-related heat stress or illness, also known as drug-induced hyperthermia, are still relatively rare—but Blumenberg says this will likely change as heat waves and record-breaking temperatures continue to increase.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The human body’s built-in “thermostat” system works to maintain an internal temperature between 97 and 99 degrees Fahrenheit (36 and 37 degrees Celsius), Blumenberg says, adding that a body temperature of more than 104 degrees F (40 degrees C) can be life-threatening. The brain structure called the hypothalamus helps orchestrate processes to keep that core temperature stable when the weather gets too hot. It acts on the autonomic nervous system, which is responsible for keeping the body in homeostasis via many important processes, including heart rate, blood pressure and respiration. The hypothalamus also regulates sweating and dilates blood vessels in the skin, arms, feet and face to dissipate body heat—and it can cause a sensation of discomfort that prompts the body to seek out shade, water or rest.

Experts say many medications associated with drug-induced hyperthermia have one factor in common: they’re anticholinergic. These drugs block cells’ receptors from binding to a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine, which plays an important role in the autonomic nervous system and its heat-adjustment responses, such as perspiration. Blocking its action can cause dry mouth and urinary retention—feeling a need to urinate but being unable to do so. “Some of these medications might cause more heat sensitivity because you’re not sweating,” says Vicki Ellingrod, dean of the University of Michigan College of Pharmacy. “Your body is not making the secretions that it should be making.” Anticholinergics can also causeflushed skin, dilated pupils, blurred vision, fever and an altered mental state. Clinicians have historically used a mnemonic about these symptoms to diagnose anticholinergic poisoning.

“A lot of drugs have mild anticholinergic properties, even if that’s not their main intent as a drug,” Blumenberg says. For example, some allergy medications primarily block a cell’s histamine receptors—but they might also bind to other receptors as well and thus still produce anticholinergic effects.

Some antipsychotics and neuroleptics (first-generation antipsychotics) can also lead to this and can create a dopamine-blocking effect as well. Dopamine—often called the “feel-good” hormone—influences motivation, memory and even body movement; blocking it can make people feel stiff and cause problems with gait, balance and muscles. One way to decrease those side effects is by pairing an antipsychotic with an anticholinergic—further interfering with acetylcholine and potentially disrupting heat regulation. People who take the antipsychotic drug haloperidol for schizophrenia, for example, are often prescribed an anticholinergic drug called benztropine that decreases some adverse side effects but can, on rare occasions, elevate internal temperature. This shouldn’t happen if people take the appropriate prescribed dose, Blumenberg says, “but it’s possible.”

Antipsychotic medications, as well as medications commonly prescribed for bipolar disorder, depression and insomnia, typically act on the brain, which means they could potentially influence the neural pathways that control temperature. Some older antipsychotics are known to occasionally cause a severe reaction called neuroleptic malignant syndrome, which impacts the body’s ability to thermoregulate, Ellingrod notes. “Now, with our newer medications, it’s not as common. But maybe with the impact of the climate, it’s going to be more common,” she says.

New research into psychiatric disorders has rapidly improved existing treatments and led to new strategies to reduce some of the adverse side effects; such steps include pairing antipsychotics with other medications. But responses to medications can still vary from person to person. Additionally, “the degree in which [these drugs] actually block the acetylcholine receptors varies between medications, which is why you can see one drug in a class really having this [anticholinergic] effect and another drug in the same class not having the same effect,” Ellingrod says. For example, she adds, the antihistamines that cause more drowsiness tend to be more anticholinergic because they can cross the blood-brain barrier. Newer antihistamines have side effects that are less sedating and very rarely disrupt thermoregulation.

A 2023 study in the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology found that most heat-related adverse effects were reported for medications that act on the nervous system (such as drugs that have strong anticholinergic effects), followed by medications that modulate the immune system. People on heart medications might face thermoregulation complications under high environmental temperatures, too. A 2022 study in Nature Cardiovascular Researchfound that people taking beta-blockers and antiplatelet medications for cardiovascular conditions have a higher risk of experiencing a heart attack in hot weather.

“Beta-receptor blockers could decrease the heart rate [and] reduce the blood flow to the skin. That makes people more vulnerable to heat exposure,” says Kai Chen, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health and a co-author of the 2022 study. “The same goes for the [antiplatelet drugs], like aspirin. People taking that could increase core body temperature during passive heat stress, which will make them more vulnerable.”

Chen notes that his study is based only on a small group of German participants. But he and his team are conducting studies to analyze these effects in bigger cohorts in the U.S., and they expect results in a couple of years. “We’re trying to see if this enhanced heat effect on these certain medications is due to the medication itself or due to the preexisting conditions,” he says. “If we can confirm through multiple studies at multiple locations with different populations that this is not a mere correlation or association and can maybe indicate a causation, then I think that will change how physicians advise the patients taking the medication during heat waves.”

Soko Setoguchi, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and a co-author of the 2020 PLOS ONE study, says there is a growing effort to understand how drugs are affected by extreme heat—because any medication can have unintended effects, and there is still “limited evidence” on how heat influences various drug interactions.

“The precise temperature threshold for these side effects to occur is not explicitly defined in the provided studies, as heat sensitivity can vary based on individual health status, medication dosage and specific environmental conditions,” Setoguchi says, adding that comprehensive data from larger trials are needed.

The Food and Drug Administration monitors drugs’ safety even after they are approved, but it has not been tracking heat-related issues associated with medications. “If newly identified safety signals are identified,” the agency wrote in an e-mail to Scientific American, “the FDA will determine what, if any, actions are appropriate after a thorough review of available data.”

Scientific American requested comment from 10 major pharmaceutical companies that make antipsychotic medications, but only one, Lundbeck, had responded by the time of publication. A spokesperson said in an e-mail that the company hasn’t “observed any side effects linked to weather conditions such as hot weather in relation to the use of antipsychotics. However, certain labels may mention side effects like flushing, tremor, and hyperthermia, which are linked to [medications that act on serotonin] and can resemble symptoms associated with hot weather.” (Serotonin is a hormone involved in temperature regulation.)

Ultimately, some medications that can induce heat-related side effects are still necessary for treating certain conditions. Experts recommend consulting with physicians about potentially adjusting doses or scheduling and alerting a health care provider if any irregular reactions occur as the weather warms. Additionally, people taking medications known to produce an anticholinergic effect should be aware of strategies to keep cool. These can include staying hydrated, carrying fans or ice packs and seeking shade or air-conditioning. Until more research results emerge, clinicians and their patients should discuss best options for prescriptions—and ways to prepare for hotter days.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Drought killer: California storms fill reservoirs, build up Sierra snowpack

It's been the wettest November on record for several Southern California cities. But experts say that despite the auspicious start, it's still too soon to say how the rest of California's traditional rainy season will shape up.

A string of early season storms that drenched Californians last week lifted much of the state out of drought and significantly reduced the risk of wildfires, experts say.It’s been the wettest November on record for Southland cities such as Van Nuys and San Luis Obispo. Santa Barbara has received an eye-popping 9.5 inches of rain since Oct. 1, marking the city’s wettest start to the water year on record. And overall the state is sitting at 186% of its average rain so far this water year, according to the Department of Water Resources.But experts say that despite the auspicious start, it’s still too soon to say how the rest of California’s traditional rainy season will shape up.“The overall impact on our water supply is TBD [to be determined] is the best way to put it,” said Jeff Mount, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California’s Water Policy Center. “We haven’t even really gotten into the wet season yet.”California receives the vast bulk of its rain and snow between December and March, trapping the runoff in its reservoirs to mete out during the hot, dry seasons that follow. Lights from bumper-to-bumper traffic along Aliso Street reflect off the federal courthouse in Los Angeles on a rainy night. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times) Those major reservoirs are now filled to 100% to 145% of average for this date. That’s not just from the recent storms — early season rains tend to soak mostly into the parched ground — but also because California is building on three prior wet winters, state climatologist Michael Anderson said.A record-breaking wet 2022-23 winter ended the state’s driest three-year period on record. That was followed by two years that were wetter than average for Northern California but drier than average for the southern half, amounting to roughly average precipitation statewide.According to the latest U.S. Drought Monitor report, issued last week before the last of the recent storms had fully soaked the state, more than 70% of California was drought-free, compared with 49% a week before. Nearly 47% of Los Angeles County emerged from moderate drought, with the other portions improving to abnormally dry, the map shows. Abnormally dry conditions also ended in Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and much of Kern counties, along with portions of Central California, according to the map. In the far southern and southeastern reaches of the state, conditions improved but still range from abnormally dry to moderate drought, the map shows.The early season storms will play an important role in priming watersheds for the rest of the winter, experts said. By soaking soils, they’ll enable future rainstorms to more easily run off into reservoirs and snow to accumulate in the Sierra Nevada.“Building the snowpack on hydrated watersheds will help us avoid losing potential spring runoff to dry soils later in the season,” Anderson wrote in an email.Snowpack is crucial to sustaining California through its hot, dry seasons because it runs down into waterways as it melts, topping off the reservoirs and providing at least 30% of the state’s water supply, said Andrew Schwartz, director of UC Berkeley’s Central Sierra Snow Lab.The research station at Donner Pass has recorded 22 inches of snow. Although that’s about 89% of normal for this date, warmer temperatures mean that much of it has already melted, Schwartz said. The snow water equivalent, which measures how much water the snow would produce if it were to melt, now stands at 50%, he said.“That’s really something that tells the tale, so far, of this season,” he said. “We’ve had plenty of rain across the Sierra, but not as much snowfall as we would ordinarily hope for up to this point.”This dynamic has become increasingly common with climate change, Schwartz said. Snow is often developing later in the season and melting earlier, and more precipitation is falling as rain, he said. Because reservoirs need to leave some room in the winter for flood mitigation, they aren’t always able to capture all this ill-timed runoff, he said.And the earlier the snow melts, the more time plants and soils have to dry out in the summer heat, priming the landscape for large wildfires, Schwartz said. Although Northern California has been spared massive fires for the last few seasons, Schwartz fears that luck could run out if the region doesn’t receive at least an average amount snow this year.For now, long-range forecasts are calling for equal chances of wet and dry conditions this winter, Mount said. What happens in the next few months will be key. California depends on just a few strong atmospheric river storms to provide moisture; as little as five to seven can end up being responsible for more than half of the year’s water supply, he said.“We’re living on the edge all the time,” he said. “A handful of storms make up the difference of whether we have a dry year or a wet year.”Although the state’s drought picture has improved for the moment, scientists caution that conditions across the West are trending hotter and drier because of the burning of fossil fuels and resultant climate change. In addition to importing water from Northern California via the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Southern California relies on water from the Colorado River. That waterway continues to be in shortage, with its largest reservoir only about one-third full.What’s more, research has shown that as the planet has warmed, the atmosphere has become thirstier, sucking more moisture from plants and soils and ensuring that dry years are drier. At the same time, there’s healthy debate over whether the same phenomenon is also making wet periods wetter, as warmer air can hold more moisture, potentially supercharging storms.As a result, swings between wet and dry on a year-to-year basis — and even within a year — seem to be getting bigger in California and elsewhere, Mount said. That increase in uncertainty has made managing water supplies more difficult overall, he said.Still, because of its climate, California has plenty of experience dealing with such extremes, said Jay Lund, professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis.“We always have to be preparing for floods and preparing for drought, no matter how wet or dry it is.”Staff writer Ian James contributed to this report.

Indigenous People Reflect On What It Meant To Participate In COP30 Climate Talks

Many who attended the UN summit in the Amazon liked the solidarity and small wins, but some felt the talks fell short on representation and true climate action.

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Indigenous people filled the streets, paddled the waterways and protested at the heart of the venue to make their voices heard during the United Nations climate talks that were supposed to give them a voice like never before at the annual conference.As the talks, called COP30, concluded Saturday in Belem, Brazil, Indigenous people reflected on what the conference meant to them and whether they were heard.Brazilian leaders had high hopes that the summit, taking place in the Amazon, would empower the people who inhabit the land and protect the biodiversity of the world’s largest rainforest, which helps stave off climate change as its trees absorb carbon pollution that heats the planet.Many Indigenous people who attended the talks felt strengthened by the solidarity with tribes from other countries and some appreciated small wins in the final outcome. But for many, the talks fell short on representation, ambition and true action on climate issues affecting Indigenous people.“This was a COP where we were visible but not empowered,” said Thalia Yarina Cachimuel, a Kichwa-Otavalo member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, a group of Indigenous people from around the world.Some language wins but nothing on fossil fuelsFrom left: Taily Terena, Gustavo Ulcue Campo, Bina Laprem and Sarah Olsvig attend an Indigenous peoples forum on climate change at the COP30 UN Climate Summit, on Nov. 21, 2025, in Belem, Brazil.Andre Penner via Associated PressThe first paragraph of the main political text acknowledges “the rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as their land rights and traditional knowledge.”Taily Terena, an Indigenous woman from the Terena nation in Brazil, said she was happy because the text for the first time mentioned those rights explicitly.But Mindahi Bastida, an Otomí-Toltec member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, said countries should have pushed harder for agreements on how to phase out fuels like oil, gas and coal “and not to see nature as merchandise, but to see it as sacred.”Several nations pushed for a road map to curtail use of fossil fuels, which when burned release greenhouse gases that warm the planet. Saturday’s final decision left out any mention of fossil fuels, leaving many countries disappointed.Brazil also launched a financial mechanism that countries could donate to, which was supposed to help incentivize nations with lots of forest to keep those ecosystems intact.Although the initiative received monetary pledges from a few countries, the project and the idea of creating a market for carbon are false solutions that “don’t stop pollution, they just move it around,” said Jacob Johns, a Wisdom Keeper of the Akimel O’Otham and Hopi nations.“They hand corporations a license to keep drilling, keep burning, keep destroying, so long as they can point to an offset written on paper. It’s the same colonial logic dressed up as climate policy,” Johns said.Concerns over tokenismBrazil Indigenous Peoples Minister Sonia Guajajara (R) poses for a selfie while walking through the COP30 UN Climate Summit venue, on Nov. 17, 2025, in Belem, Brazil.Andre Penner via Associated PressFrom the beginning of the conference, some Indigenous attendees were concerned visibility isn’t the same as true power. At the end, that sentiment lingered.“What we have seen at this COP is a focus on symbolic presence rather than enabling the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples,” Sara Olsvig, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, wrote in a message after the conference concluded.Edson Krenak, Brazil manager for Indigenous rights group Cultural Survival and member of the Krenak people, didn’t think negotiators did enough to visit forests or understand the communities living there. He also didn’t believe the 900 Indigenous people given access to the main venue was enough.Sônia Guajajara, Brazil’s minister of Indigenous peoples, who is Indigenous herself, framed the convention differently.“It is undeniable that this is the largest and best COP in terms of Indigenous participation and protagonism,” she said.Protests showed power of Indigenous solidarityIndigenous leader and climate activist Txai Surui (R) shouts slogans while leaving a plenary session during the COP30 UN Climate Change Conference in Belem, Brazil, on Nov. 21, 2025. Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty ImagesWhile the decisions by delegates left some Indigenous attendees feeling dismissed, many said they felt empowered by participating in demonstrations outside the venue.When the summit began on Nov. 10, Paulo André Paz de Lima, an Amazonian Indigenous leader, thought his tribe and others didn’t have access to COP30. During the first week, he and a group of demonstrators broke through the barrier to get inside the venue. Authorities quickly intervened and stopped their advancement.De Lima said that act helped Indigenous people amplify their voices.“After breaking the barrier, we were able to enter COP, get into the Blue Zone and express our needs,” he said, referring to the official negotiation area. “We got closer (to the negotiations), got more visibility.”The meaning of protest at this COP wasn’t just to get the attention of non-Indigenous people, it also was intended as a way for Indigenous people to commune with each other.On the final night before an agreement was reached, a small group with banners walked inside the venue, protesting instances of violence and environmental destruction from the recent killing of a Guarani youth on his own territory to the proposed Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project in Canada.“We have to come together to show up, you know? Because they need to hear us,” Leandro Karaí of the Guarani people of South America said of the solidarity among Indigenous groups. “When we’re together with others, we’re stronger.“They sang to the steady beat of a drum, locked arms in a line and marched down the long hall of the COP venue to the exit, breaking the silence in the corridors as negotiators remained deadlocked inside.Then they emerged, voices raised, under a yellow sky.

This Pig’s Bacon Was Delicious—and She’s Alive and Well

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. I’m eating Dawn the Yorkshire pig and she’s quite tasty. But don’t worry. She’s doing perfectly fine, traipsing around a sanctuary in upstate New York. Word is that she appreciates belly rubs and sunshine. I’m in San Francisco, at an Italian […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. I’m eating Dawn the Yorkshire pig and she’s quite tasty. But don’t worry. She’s doing perfectly fine, traipsing around a sanctuary in upstate New York. Word is that she appreciates belly rubs and sunshine. I’m in San Francisco, at an Italian joint just south of Golden Gate Park, enjoying meatballs and bacon not made of meat in the traditional sense but of plants mixed with “cultivated” pork fat. Dawn, you see, donated a small sample of fat, which a company called Mission Barns got to proliferate in devices called bioreactors by providing nutrients like carbohydrates, amino acids, and vitamins—essentially replicating the conditions in her body. Because so much of the flavor of pork and other meats comes from the animal’s fat, Mission Barns can create products like sausages and salami with plants but make them taste darn near like sausages and salami.  I’ve been struggling to describe the experience, because cultivated meat short-circuits my brain—my mouth thinks I’m eating a real pork meatball, but my brain knows that it’s fundamentally different and that Dawn (pictured above) didn’t have to die for it. This is the best I’ve come up with: It’s Diet Meat. Just as Diet Coke is an approximation of the real thing, so too are cultivated meatballs. They simply taste a bit less meaty, at least to my tongue. Which is understandable, as the only animal product in this food is the bioreactor-grown fat. Cultivated pork is the newest entrant in the effort to rethink meat. For years, plant-based offerings have been mimicking burgers, chicken, and fish with ever-more convincing blends of proteins and fats. Mission Barns is one of a handful of startups taking the next step: growing real animal fat outside the animal, then marrying it with plants to create hybrids that look, cook, and taste more like what consumers have always eaten, easing the environmental and ethical costs of industrial livestock. The company says it’s starting with pork because it’s a large market and products like bacon are fat-rich, but its technology is “cell-agnostic,” meaning it could create beef and chicken, too. Lab-grown meat ballsMatt Simon Honestly, Mission Barns’ creations taste great, in part because they’re “unstructured,” in the parlance of the industry. A pork loin is a complicated tangle of fat, muscle cells, and connective tissues that is very difficult and expensive to replicate, but a meatball, salami, or sausage incorporates other ingredients. That allows Mission Barns to experiment with what plant to use as a base, and then add spices to accentuate the flavors. It’s a technology that they can iterate, basically, crafting ever-better meats by toying with ingredients in different ratios.  So the bacon I ate, for instance, had a nice applewood smoke to it. The meatballs had the springiness you’d expect. During a later visit to Mission Barns’ headquarters across town, I got to try two prototypes of its salami as well—both were spiced like you’d expect but less elastic, so they chewed a bit more easily than what you’d find on a charcuterie board. (The sensation of food in the mouth is known in the industry as “mouthfeel,” and nailing it is essential to the success of alt meats.) The salami slices even left grease stains on the paper they were served on—Dawn’s own little mark on the world. I was one of the first people to purchase a cultivated pork product. While Mission Barns has so far only sold its products at that Italian restaurant and, for a limited time, at a grocery store in Berkeley—$13.99 for a pack of eight meatballs, similar to higher-end products from organic and regenerative farms—it is fixing to scale up production and sell the technology to other companies to produce more cultivated foods. (It is assessing how big the bioreactors will have to be to reach price parity with traditional meat products.) The idea is to provide an alternative to animal agriculture, which uses a whole lot of land, water, and energy to raise creatures and ship their flesh around the world. Livestock are responsible for between 10 and 20 percent of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions—depending on who’s estimating it—and that’s to say nothing of the cruelty involved in keeping pigs and chickens and cows in unsavory, occasionally inhumane, conditions. “I also love the idea of taking their pork fat and putting it in a beef burger.” Getting animal cells to grow outside of an animal, though, ain’t easy. For one, if cells don’t have anything to attach to, they die. So Mission Barns’ cultivator uses a spongelike structure, full of nooks and crannies that provides lots of surface area for the cells to grow. “We have our media, which is just the nutrient solution that we give to these cells,” said Saam Shahrokhi, chief technology officer at Mission Barns. “We’re essentially recapitulating all of the environmental cues that make cells inside the body grow fat, [but] outside the body.” While Dawn’s fat is that of a Yorkshire pig, Shahrokhi said they could easily produce fat from other breeds like the Mangalitsa, known as the Kobe beef of pork. (In June, the company won approval from the US Department of Agriculture to bring its cultivated fat to market.) Fat in hand, Mission Barns can mix it with plant proteins. If you’re familiar with Impossible Foods, it uses soy to replicate the feel and look of ground beef and adds soy leghemoglobin, which is similar to the heme that gives meat its meaty flavor. Depending on the flavor and texture it’s trying to copy, Mission Bay uses pea protein for the meatballs and sausages, wheat for the bacon, and fava beans for the salami. “The plant-based meat industry has done pretty well with texture,” said Bianca Le, head of special projects at Mission Barns. “I think what they’re really missing is flavor and juiciness, which obviously is where the fat comes in.” But the fat is just the beginning. Mission Barns’ offerings not only have to taste good, but also can’t have an off-putting smell when they’re coming out of the package and when they’re cooking. The designers have to dial in the pH, which could degrade the proteins if not balanced. How the products behave on the stove or in the oven has to be familiar, too. “If someone has to relearn how to cook a piece of bacon or a meatball, then it’s never going to work,” said Zach Tyndall, the product development and culinary manager at Mission Barns. Lab-grown salamiMatt Simon When I pick up that piece of salami, it has to feel like the real thing, in more ways than one. Indeed, it’s greasy in the hand and has that tang of cured meat. It’s even been through a dry-aging process to reduce its moisture. “We treat this like we would a conventional piece of salami,” Tyndall said.  Cultivated meat companies may also go more unconventional. “I also love the idea of taking their pork fat and putting it in a beef burger—what would happen if you did that?” said Barb Stuckey, chief new product strategy officer at Mattson, a food developer that has worked with many cultivated meat companies. “Mixing species, it’s not something we typically do. But with this technology, we can.”  Of course, in this new frontier of food, the big question is: Who exactly is this for? Would a vegetarian or vegan eat cultured pork fat if it’s divorced from the cruelty of factory farming? Would meat-eaters be willing to give up the real thing for a facsimile? Mission Barns’ market research, Le said, found that its early adopters are actually flexitarians—people who eat mostly plant-based but partake in the occasional animal product. But Le adds that their first limited sale to the public in Berkeley included some people who called themselves vegetarians and vegans.  There’s also the matter of quantifying how much of an environmental improvement cultivated fat might offer over industrial pork production. If scaled up, one benefit of cultivated food might be that companies can produce the stuff in more places—that is, instead of sprawling pig farms and slaughterhouses being relegated to rural areas, bioreactors could be run in cities, cutting down on the costs and emissions associated with shipping. Still, those factories would need energy to grow fat cells, though they could be run on renewable electricity. “We modeled our process at the large commercial scale, and then compared it to U.S. bacon production,” Le said. (The company would not offer specific details, saying it is in the process of patenting its technique.) “And we found that with renewable energy, we do significantly better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.” Whether or not consumers bite, though, remains to be seen. The market for meat alternatives in the US has majorly softened of late: Beyond Meat, which makes plant-based products like burgers and sausages, has seen revenues drop significantly, in part because of consumers’ turn away from processed foods. But by licensing its technology elsewhere, Mission Barns’ strategy is to break into new markets beyond the United States. The challenges of cultivated meat go beyond the engineering once you get to the messaging and branding—telegraphing to consumers that they’re buying something that may in fact be partially meat. “When you buy chicken, you get 100 percent chicken,” Stuckey said. “I think a lot of people go into cultivated meat thinking what’s going to come onto the market is 100 percent cultivated chicken, and it’s not going to be that. It’s going to be something else.”  Regardless of the trajectory of cultivated fat products, Dawn will continue mingling with llamas, soaking up the sunshine, and getting belly rubs in upstate New York—even as she makes plants taste more like pork. 

Why is climate action stalling, not ramping up as Earth gets hotter?

As the impact of global warming becomes more obvious, you might expect countries to step up climate action and preparation, but we’re seeing the opposite happen

Climate campaigners march on the sidelines of the COP30 summit in Belém, BrazilPABLO PORCIUNCULA/AFP via Getty Images Ten years on from the Paris Agreement, we should be seeing a massive ratcheting up of climate action. Instead, the past four years have seen almost no progress – including at the latest COP summit, which failed to take any meaningful steps towards phasing out fossil fuels or ending deforestation. What’s going on? I don’t know the answer. But I’m starting to fear that rather than responding more rationally as the world heats up and the impacts get ever more serious, our responses are becoming more irrational. If that is the case, climate impacts are going to be much worse than they would otherwise be, and the prospect of a decline in our global civilisation seems more plausible than I have long thought. Let’s start by going back to the Paris Agreement of 2015. The whole idea of an international climate agreement under which every country sets its own targets for limiting greenhouse emissions seemed ludicrous to me. As did the idea of setting an “aspirational” target of 1.5°C that was wildly disconnected from what countries were planning to do. Supporters claimed this would be solved by a “ratchet mechanism”, under which countries would progressively increase their targets. I wasn’t convinced. I came away from Paris regarding it as a gigantic greenwashing exercise. My expectation was that it would have little immediate impact, but as the effects of warming became more obvious, action would start to ramp up. In other words, reason would eventually prevail. So far, the opposite has happened. In the lead-up to Paris, in October 2015, the Climate Action Tracker project estimated that the world was heading for warming of around 3.6°C by 2100, based on current policies and action. By 2021, that estimate had been revised down to around 2.6°C. That’s a massive improvement − it seemed Paris was working. But the latest Climate Action Tracker report ahead of the COP30 summit makes for grim reading. For the fourth year in a row there has been “little to no measurable progress”. “Global progress is stalling,” the report says. “While a handful of countries are making genuine progress, their efforts are counterbalanced by others delaying, or rolling back climate policies.” In fact, an astonishing 95 per cent of countries missed this year’s deadline for updating their targets under that ratchet mechanism. Yes, renewable energy generation is growing much faster than predicted. But this is being counterbalanced by the huge sums being poured into fossil fuels. Cheap solar alone isn’t going to save us. For one thing, negative feedback effects kick in: the more solar there is, the less profitable it is to install more. For another, generating green electricity is the easy part – we’re not making nearly enough progress on the hard things, such as farming, flying and steel-making. What’s more, the problem isn’t just the failure to slash emissions. We’re not preparing to cope with what’s coming, either. We’re still building cities on sinking land next to rising seas. “Adaptation progress is either too slow, has stalled, or is heading in the wrong direction,” said an April report by the UK’s Climate Change Committee – and the picture is similar elsewhere. The big question is why climate action is stalling instead of ramping up further. In some countries, it’s obviously due to the election of politicians who don’t see climate change as a priority or unashamedly deny it, as reflected by the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Even governments that say climate is a priority are doing less, however, seemingly on the basis that there are more urgent issues to deal with such as the cost of living crisis. Yet the cost of living crisis is in part a climate crisis, with extreme weather helping drive up food prices. As warming continues, the impact on food and the wider economy is only going to become more serious. Are we going to get to the point where governments say they can’t act on climate change because of the costs of dealing with major cities being inundated by rising seas? Are people’s fears about the state of the world going to make them keep voting for climate deniers despite pollsters telling us that most people worldwide want more climate action? The idea that that growing evidence will persuade leaders to come to their senses is looking ever more naive. We are, after all, in a strange multiverse where the US Centers for Disease Control is promoting antivax nonsense even as the country is about to lose its measles-free status, and where some politicians promote the idea that hurricanes were due to weather manipulation. After year after year of record-smashing heat, it’s never been more obvious that climate change is real and really bad. But perhaps that’s the problem. The philosopher Martha Nussbaum has argued that fear is a tremendously negative force that makes people abandon rationality and focus on their immediate welfare rather than the long-term good. And there is some evidence that environmental stresses make people behave irrationally. People tend to leap straight from “things are bad” to “we’re all doomed”. No, we aren’t doomed. But the longer it takes for reason to prevail, the worse the outcome will be. Maybe what we’re seeing is just a blip related to the pandemic fallout and Russia’s war on Ukraine − or maybe there’s something more worrying happening.

How to make data centers less thirsty

There’s a way to reduce both the climate and water harms of data centers: build them in places with lots of wind and solar energy.

Data centers are notoriously thirsty. Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have found that, in 2023, the facilities consumed roughly 17 billion gallons of water for their operations in the U.S. alone. But that’s only a small part of the picture: A much, much larger share of data center water-intensity is indirect, a byproduct of the facilities’ enormous appetites for energy. That’s because most power plants themselves require huge amounts of water to operate. This off-site, indirect water consumption amounted to a whopping 211 billion gallons in the Berkeley lab’s 2023 tally — well over 10 times the direct on-site usage. As Silicon Valley continues to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into artificial intelligence and demand for data centers grows, these water needs are only going to grow in tandem.  However, new research from Cornell University shows that there’s a way to mitigate both the climate and water footprints of these facilities: build them in places with lots of wind and solar energy. “Location really matters,” said Fengqi You, an energy systems engineering professor at Cornell and co-author of the new study. Where companies choose to locate their data centers could alter their combined environmental footprints by a factor of up to 100. In the course of their operations, data centers use water as a coolant. Energy-hungry servers generate substantial heat, and water circulates through cooling systems to prevent the equipment from overheating and breaking down. But substantial amounts of water are also used indirectly through the generation of electricity to run the facilities. Thermoelectric power plants, regardless of whether they use coal, gas, or nuclear material, use that fuel to generate heat that converts water into steam, which is then used to spin a turbine and generate electricity. And since hydroelectric plants typically store large volumes of water in reservoirs behind dams, there is water loss there as well, as water continually evaporates from the surface of reservoirs. All told, water use during power generation can be responsible for more than 70 percent of a data center’s total water consumption, according to the new Cornell research. “That’s why the electricity power grid mix is very critical,” said You.  You and his co-authors examined the energy and water use of data centers across the country to project where future investments should be made to reduce environmental impacts. The study assumes that the data center boom, which is being fueled by staggering levels of investment in artificial intelligence, is unlikely to slow down anytime soon. Against that backdrop, the question the study then poses is: Where in the country is the most environmentally sustainable place to build a data center? The researchers considered both the direct and indirect uses of energy and water as a result of building a data center in a specific location. The most promising region they identified might turn heads: bone-dry West Texas. But because the region is sparsely populated, has groundwater that can be drawn on for use as a coolant, and produces ample wind energy, it scored highest on both energy and water stress metrics. In fact, the grid-related water footprint in West Texas is among the lowest in the country, thanks to the large amount of wind energy produced, according to the study. “From an energy and water efficiency perspective, the states that have enough dry renewables will be the best choice,” said You, adding that Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota all appear to be prime locations for future AI servers, alongside the Lone Star State. Conversely, most parts of the Pacific Northwest didn’t score as well because of the region’s reliance on hydropower. Although the cost of electricity is low in the area, the associated loss of water through power generation means that building more data centers is likely to have a substantially larger water footprint than it would in other parts of the country. Another recent study from researchers at Purdue University came to a similar conclusion. They looked at the availability of water across the country and mapped out how that might change over time, particularly as climate change makes some regions hotter and drier. The researchers also examined the water impact of existing Google data centers and found that the majority were located in areas with low water stress. “Companies absolutely take the environment into consideration in their decisions — not just the economic factor,” said Yi Ding, one of the authors of the paper and an electrical and computer engineering professor at Purdue. “We infer that Google already somewhat considered water stress because they put most of the data centers in low-stress regions.” Texas already has more than 400 data centers located in the state, second only to Virginia. The state’s grid infrastructure, potential for renewables, and availability of cheap land has made it an attractive proposition for tech companies. But the other states identified by the Cornell study as having a small environmental footprint — Nebraska, South Dakota, and Montana — have just 70 or so data centers combined, out of more than at least 4,200 nationally. That’s because a number of other factors, such as the policy environment and infrastructure considerations, are deterring companies from building new facilities there. But if those states geared their policymaking toward attracting data centers, it could make a difference, You said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How to make data centers less thirsty on Nov 24, 2025.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.