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.

America Needs a Disaster Corps

News Feed
Monday, September 30, 2024

On the afternoon before Hurricane Helene made landfall in Florida, Veronica Robleto was coordinating text messages to the 2,500 or so people on her organization’s mailing list, telling them to flee. Robleto is the director of the Rural Women’s Health Project, a small nonprofit that primarily serves north-central Florida’s Spanish-speaking immigrant community, but she and her colleagues found themselves becoming emergency communicators. Some of the messages, which the group also posted to Facebook, were simply Spanish versions of mandatory evacuation orders—some Florida counties don’t translate these themselves. Many of the people receiving the texts lived in mobile homes, which are particularly unsafe places to be during a hurricane. And not all of those people knew they needed to go.Now that the hurricane has struck, RWHP’s team has started handing out food, hygiene supplies, and mold-mitigation kits. It will organize community health workers to go door-to-door, doing welfare checks. The group also keeps in touch with about a dozen people it calls comunicadores, who are particularly well connected in their communities and are each in contact via WhatsApp with 20 to 100 people. This is grassroots organizing in the most basic sense. And for many people in this population—especially those who might be undocumented (including many of the state’s farmworkers and those hired to clean up after hurricanes) and who may fear going to government-run shelters—it’s all they have.The RWHP is one of a handful of nonprofits in Florida and beyond filling gaps in government disaster relief, with systems to check on people, distribute food, and help navigate FEMA applications. Given that the number of billion-dollar-plus disasters are on the rise, the U.S. is going to confront these same problems over and over again. And instead of continuing to fail in the same ways, the country could start to rethink its relationship to disaster resilience and more directly shore up the work being done through nonprofits such as RWHP, by giving them funding commensurate with their role in reducing harm.That is, it could create a national disaster corps, of groups already providing community support and of workers trained to serve the more and more constant needs of disaster preparedness and recovery. In a moment like this, when much of the Southeast is surveying the damage from the storm, and western North Carolina has been all but cut off from the rest of the country, creating a more official network of neighbors helping neighbors could better equip communities to make it through.In her 2009 book, A Paradise Built in Hell, the author Rebecca Solnit describes the surge of mutual aid that appears after disasters—neighbors tend to help one another, forming decentralized groups to feed people, check on the vulnerable, and clean up the mess, in many cases long before any government support comes in. And the work feels good: People report feeling fulfilled by making a difference in an otherwise painful situation. I saw that in many of my friends when the pandemic hit New York City and they joined brigades distributing groceries door-to-door during lockdown. In most cases, mutual aid’s agility is built on deep knowledge; the chain of care can be activated quickly, but it’s based on long-term connections. RWHP has established its network of comunicadores by working in the community for more than 30 years. Help has been sent to North Carolina from as far away as California, but in the first hours and even days of a disaster, before outside assistance arrives, the organizations that have always supported a community are best positioned to coordinate survival and initial steps toward recovery.“There’ve been a lot of experiments after natural disasters and through COVID around different mutual-aid processes,” Andrea Cristina Mercado, the executive director of the progressive organizing group Florida Rising, told me. “What would it look like for the federal government to invest in them and scale them?”[Read: The climate is falling apart. Prepare for the push alerts.]Many states have already more formally tapped into that kind of community care to help residents with chronic medical needs. People caring for their elderly or disabled kin on Medicaid can get paid through their state government for their work as de facto home-health aids. For disasters, identifying the organizations or individuals best able to help would have to happen ahead of any event, but groups such as RWHP—set up to quickly find out what communities need and quickly respond—would be natural fits. Look at the institutions that have been doubling as emergency shelters in western North Carolina: churches, high schools, elementary schools, an agricultural center, an athletics center, and a volunteer fire department. These are organizations already at the center of local social networks; they’re emergency shelters for a reason. If more of these types of organizations were recognized as disaster responders, perhaps they could more easily access federal resources and direct them according to the flexible needs of the situation. For instance, during the pandemic, a nonprofit called Resilience Force hired laid-off New Orleans service workers to knock on doors to promote vaccines; when Hurricanes Laura and Ida hit, the same group was activated to distribute goods. One could also imagine recruiting individuals who already fulfill the role of the caring neighbor familiar with the contours of their community. Everyone knows that neighbor. In my building, her name is Kim. She is the unofficial  president of our 60-odd-unit rental complex, knowledgeable about almost everyone in each unit, their kids and grandkids, and, crucially, their problems. When one of us has a building-related crisis—rats bursting through the wall, for example (this is New York City, after all)—we go to Kim. She’s a liaison with building management too; they listen to her because she knows what’s going on. If New York City decided to experiment in more directly funding mutual aid, Kim might be given a formal channel to liaise with a nonprofit, or a city agency, in the event of a broader emergency.The level of granular community outreach that’s helpful in the days before and after disasters requires those intimate connections. The National Guard is activated during many disasters to staff shelters or distribute aid, and its members are already dispersed throughout communities across the country; disaster work could be conceived as an expansion of their job, or even a new branch of the military, which, after all, has installations throughout the country. Both are efficient at channeling government resources into communities. But arguably, people and groups that exist to help community members help one another are particularly well positioned to get people access to those resources, precisely because they’re not reaching out to people for the first time during an emergency. They’re already in touch.Saket Soni, a longtime labor organizer and the founder of Resilience Force, has a vision for a disaster corps that goes beyond mutual aid. His group advocates for and trains workers to do the sort of house repairs needed after a disaster, and engages with post-disaster construction companies to get those workers hired. It has some 3,000 members, including about 1,000 in Florida, he told me. But Soni envisions a corps of 1 million traveling resilience workers who are paid well for their work and recognized as a national resource in a country that badly needs them. “Resilience is fundamentally a public good,” he said. “There should be a public jobs program around resilience.”When disasters hit, insurance companies and private homeowners look for companies that specialize in recovery; Resilience Force helps make sure those companies can then hire people who are “loyal, skilled, professionalized, and vetted,” Soni told me. The group received some federal funding for the first time this month, as part of an infrastructure-jobs grant from the Department of Labor, Soni said. Resilience Force will use that money to train another 1,000 workers in Florida to do long-term repairs on disaster-stricken homes. At present, many of the workers doing such jobs are immigrants; plenty are undocumented, which has led to them working in unsafe conditions and to employers withholding wages; they are particularly vulnerable in states, such as Florida, with tougher laws against undocumented immigrants. Post-disaster restoration jobs fall to them in part because these are essentially construction jobs, and undocumented immigrants comprise an estimated 23 percent of the construction workforce in the U.S.Of course, a U.S. jobs program could—and all but certainly would—require its candidates to be U.S. citizens. A more formal Disaster Corps that offered well-paying jobs only to U.S. citizens might make these jobs more appealing to people who aren’t in this line of work. But as of now, disaster-hit towns and cities struggle to find enough U.S. citizens to do the rebuilding. It is therefore worth contemplating whether noncitizens could be eligible to work in a Disaster Corps. When I asked Soni if, in his view, hiring a fleet of resilience workers would depend on some version of immigration reform, he replied only that the government would need to channel that work through nonprofits, given its lack of agility for mass hiring. Still, the rise of anti-immigrant state laws and public sentiment means that a federal program calling attention to the role of immigrants (documented or not) in recovery work would likely invite criticism, if not outright hostility, in some of the places where they arrive to rebuild.A critic might also argue that adding a dedicated Disaster Corps would only be a form of government bloat. If community groups are already doing this work without government support, formalizing it might just add bureaucracy and, perversely, limit their flexibility in disasters. (Government programs aren’t renowned for their pliability.) Someone in government would have to decide which individuals and groups qualified for the corps, and one could imagine a cadre of people who become experts in, say, helping nonprofit groups join the Disaster Corps in order to better help their communities navigate applications for FEMA assistance.But the government is already paying the extra cost for the years-long fallout from hurricanes and other disasters. Investing in harm reduction is almost always a wise economic choice and would likely bring that price tag down. Programs like these recognize that responding to current climate-change impacts, and avoiding more, requires work. Preparing homes to withstand storms, for instance, is far less costly than dealing with a storm’s aftermath. “Over 10 million homes in America need to be made flood-resilient,” Soni said. “That requires skill.”A Disaster Corps would complement the ways that the Biden administration has tiptoed toward a small federal jobs program associated with climate change. The president’s Climate Corps began hiring in June, engaging 15,000 young people so far, and last week the administration announced the formation of an Environmental Justice Climate Corps, which will focus specifically on disadvantaged communities and aims to recruit, over the next three years, at least 250 employees, who will make more than $25 an hour. These are vanishingly small numbers compared with what might be needed to address overlapping climate-related needs going forward, but it’s a start.The climate crisis presents an opportunity for a jobs program on the scale that the U.S. hasn’t seen since the New Deal. The work would be meaningful, fulfilling even. And it could save a country quickly falling into several climate-disaster traps as expensive and destructive disasters mount. It may sound far-fetched—infusing mutual-aid organizations with federal cash, or deploying a large-scale jobs program to make our homes resilient—but that doesn’t mean we can’t imagine it.

Mutual aid keeps communities afloat in the moments after disasters strike. Why not turn it into a jobs program?

On the afternoon before Hurricane Helene made landfall in Florida, Veronica Robleto was coordinating text messages to the 2,500 or so people on her organization’s mailing list, telling them to flee. Robleto is the director of the Rural Women’s Health Project, a small nonprofit that primarily serves north-central Florida’s Spanish-speaking immigrant community, but she and her colleagues found themselves becoming emergency communicators. Some of the messages, which the group also posted to Facebook, were simply Spanish versions of mandatory evacuation orders—some Florida counties don’t translate these themselves. Many of the people receiving the texts lived in mobile homes, which are particularly unsafe places to be during a hurricane. And not all of those people knew they needed to go.

Now that the hurricane has struck, RWHP’s team has started handing out food, hygiene supplies, and mold-mitigation kits. It will organize community health workers to go door-to-door, doing welfare checks. The group also keeps in touch with about a dozen people it calls comunicadores, who are particularly well connected in their communities and are each in contact via WhatsApp with 20 to 100 people. This is grassroots organizing in the most basic sense. And for many people in this population—especially those who might be undocumented (including many of the state’s farmworkers and those hired to clean up after hurricanes) and who may fear going to government-run shelters—it’s all they have.

The RWHP is one of a handful of nonprofits in Florida and beyond filling gaps in government disaster relief, with systems to check on people, distribute food, and help navigate FEMA applications. Given that the number of billion-dollar-plus disasters are on the rise, the U.S. is going to confront these same problems over and over again. And instead of continuing to fail in the same ways, the country could start to rethink its relationship to disaster resilience and more directly shore up the work being done through nonprofits such as RWHP, by giving them funding commensurate with their role in reducing harm.

That is, it could create a national disaster corps, of groups already providing community support and of workers trained to serve the more and more constant needs of disaster preparedness and recovery. In a moment like this, when much of the Southeast is surveying the damage from the storm, and western North Carolina has been all but cut off from the rest of the country, creating a more official network of neighbors helping neighbors could better equip communities to make it through.


In her 2009 book, A Paradise Built in Hell, the author Rebecca Solnit describes the surge of mutual aid that appears after disasters—neighbors tend to help one another, forming decentralized groups to feed people, check on the vulnerable, and clean up the mess, in many cases long before any government support comes in. And the work feels good: People report feeling fulfilled by making a difference in an otherwise painful situation. I saw that in many of my friends when the pandemic hit New York City and they joined brigades distributing groceries door-to-door during lockdown. In most cases, mutual aid’s agility is built on deep knowledge; the chain of care can be activated quickly, but it’s based on long-term connections. RWHP has established its network of comunicadores by working in the community for more than 30 years. Help has been sent to North Carolina from as far away as California, but in the first hours and even days of a disaster, before outside assistance arrives, the organizations that have always supported a community are best positioned to coordinate survival and initial steps toward recovery.

“There’ve been a lot of experiments after natural disasters and through COVID around different mutual-aid processes,” Andrea Cristina Mercado, the executive director of the progressive organizing group Florida Rising, told me. “What would it look like for the federal government to invest in them and scale them?”

[Read: The climate is falling apart. Prepare for the push alerts.]

Many states have already more formally tapped into that kind of community care to help residents with chronic medical needs. People caring for their elderly or disabled kin on Medicaid can get paid through their state government for their work as de facto home-health aids. For disasters, identifying the organizations or individuals best able to help would have to happen ahead of any event, but groups such as RWHP—set up to quickly find out what communities need and quickly respond—would be natural fits. Look at the institutions that have been doubling as emergency shelters in western North Carolina: churches, high schools, elementary schools, an agricultural center, an athletics center, and a volunteer fire department. These are organizations already at the center of local social networks; they’re emergency shelters for a reason. If more of these types of organizations were recognized as disaster responders, perhaps they could more easily access federal resources and direct them according to the flexible needs of the situation. For instance, during the pandemic, a nonprofit called Resilience Force hired laid-off New Orleans service workers to knock on doors to promote vaccines; when Hurricanes Laura and Ida hit, the same group was activated to distribute goods.

One could also imagine recruiting individuals who already fulfill the role of the caring neighbor familiar with the contours of their community. Everyone knows that neighbor. In my building, her name is Kim. She is the unofficial  president of our 60-odd-unit rental complex, knowledgeable about almost everyone in each unit, their kids and grandkids, and, crucially, their problems. When one of us has a building-related crisis—rats bursting through the wall, for example (this is New York City, after all)—we go to Kim. She’s a liaison with building management too; they listen to her because she knows what’s going on. If New York City decided to experiment in more directly funding mutual aid, Kim might be given a formal channel to liaise with a nonprofit, or a city agency, in the event of a broader emergency.

The level of granular community outreach that’s helpful in the days before and after disasters requires those intimate connections. The National Guard is activated during many disasters to staff shelters or distribute aid, and its members are already dispersed throughout communities across the country; disaster work could be conceived as an expansion of their job, or even a new branch of the military, which, after all, has installations throughout the country. Both are efficient at channeling government resources into communities. But arguably, people and groups that exist to help community members help one another are particularly well positioned to get people access to those resources, precisely because they’re not reaching out to people for the first time during an emergency. They’re already in touch.


Saket Soni, a longtime labor organizer and the founder of Resilience Force, has a vision for a disaster corps that goes beyond mutual aid. His group advocates for and trains workers to do the sort of house repairs needed after a disaster, and engages with post-disaster construction companies to get those workers hired. It has some 3,000 members, including about 1,000 in Florida, he told me. But Soni envisions a corps of 1 million traveling resilience workers who are paid well for their work and recognized as a national resource in a country that badly needs them. “Resilience is fundamentally a public good,” he said. “There should be a public jobs program around resilience.”

When disasters hit, insurance companies and private homeowners look for companies that specialize in recovery; Resilience Force helps make sure those companies can then hire people who are “loyal, skilled, professionalized, and vetted,” Soni told me. The group received some federal funding for the first time this month, as part of an infrastructure-jobs grant from the Department of Labor, Soni said. Resilience Force will use that money to train another 1,000 workers in Florida to do long-term repairs on disaster-stricken homes. At present, many of the workers doing such jobs are immigrants; plenty are undocumented, which has led to them working in unsafe conditions and to employers withholding wages; they are particularly vulnerable in states, such as Florida, with tougher laws against undocumented immigrants. Post-disaster restoration jobs fall to them in part because these are essentially construction jobs, and undocumented immigrants comprise an estimated 23 percent of the construction workforce in the U.S.

Of course, a U.S. jobs program could—and all but certainly would—require its candidates to be U.S. citizens. A more formal Disaster Corps that offered well-paying jobs only to U.S. citizens might make these jobs more appealing to people who aren’t in this line of work. But as of now, disaster-hit towns and cities struggle to find enough U.S. citizens to do the rebuilding. It is therefore worth contemplating whether noncitizens could be eligible to work in a Disaster Corps. When I asked Soni if, in his view, hiring a fleet of resilience workers would depend on some version of immigration reform, he replied only that the government would need to channel that work through nonprofits, given its lack of agility for mass hiring. Still, the rise of anti-immigrant state laws and public sentiment means that a federal program calling attention to the role of immigrants (documented or not) in recovery work would likely invite criticism, if not outright hostility, in some of the places where they arrive to rebuild.

A critic might also argue that adding a dedicated Disaster Corps would only be a form of government bloat. If community groups are already doing this work without government support, formalizing it might just add bureaucracy and, perversely, limit their flexibility in disasters. (Government programs aren’t renowned for their pliability.) Someone in government would have to decide which individuals and groups qualified for the corps, and one could imagine a cadre of people who become experts in, say, helping nonprofit groups join the Disaster Corps in order to better help their communities navigate applications for FEMA assistance.

But the government is already paying the extra cost for the years-long fallout from hurricanes and other disasters. Investing in harm reduction is almost always a wise economic choice and would likely bring that price tag down. Programs like these recognize that responding to current climate-change impacts, and avoiding more, requires work. Preparing homes to withstand storms, for instance, is far less costly than dealing with a storm’s aftermath. “Over 10 million homes in America need to be made flood-resilient,” Soni said. “That requires skill.”

A Disaster Corps would complement the ways that the Biden administration has tiptoed toward a small federal jobs program associated with climate change. The president’s Climate Corps began hiring in June, engaging 15,000 young people so far, and last week the administration announced the formation of an Environmental Justice Climate Corps, which will focus specifically on disadvantaged communities and aims to recruit, over the next three years, at least 250 employees, who will make more than $25 an hour. These are vanishingly small numbers compared with what might be needed to address overlapping climate-related needs going forward, but it’s a start.

The climate crisis presents an opportunity for a jobs program on the scale that the U.S. hasn’t seen since the New Deal. The work would be meaningful, fulfilling even. And it could save a country quickly falling into several climate-disaster traps as expensive and destructive disasters mount. It may sound far-fetched—infusing mutual-aid organizations with federal cash, or deploying a large-scale jobs program to make our homes resilient—but that doesn’t mean we can’t imagine it.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Climate Impact of Owning a Dog

My dog contributes to climate change. I love him anyway.

This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.I’ve been a vegetarian for over a decade. It’s not because of my health, or because I dislike the taste of chicken or beef: It’s a lifestyle choice I made because I wanted to reduce my impact on the planet. And yet, twice a day, every day, I lovingly scoop a cup of meat-based kibble into a bowl and set it down for my 50-pound rescue dog, a husky mix named Loki.WIRED's Guide to How the Universe WorksYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Until recently, I hadn’t devoted a huge amount of thought to that paradox. Then I read an article in the Associated Press headlined “People often miscalculate climate choices, a study says. One surprise is owning a dog.”The study, led by environmental psychology researcher Danielle Goldwert and published in the journal PNAS Nexus, examined how people perceive the climate impact of various behaviors—options like “adopt a vegan diet for at least one year,” or “shift from fossil fuel car to renewable public transport.” The team found that participants generally overestimated a number of low-impact actions like recycling and using efficient appliances, and they vastly underestimated the impact of other personal decisions, including the decision to “not purchase or adopt a dog.”The real objective of the study was to see whether certain types of climate information could help people commit to more effective actions. But mere hours after the AP published its article, its aim had been recast as something else entirely: an attack on people’s furry family members. “Climate change is actually your fault because you have a dog,” one Reddit user wrote. Others in the community chimed in with ire, ridiculing the idea that a pet Chihuahua could be driving the climate crisis and calling on researchers and the media to stop pointing fingers at everyday individuals.Goldwert and her fellow researchers watched the reactions unfold with dismay. “If I saw a headline that said, ‘Climate scientists want to take your dogs away,’ I would also feel upset,” she said. “They definitely don’t,” she added. “You can quote me on that.”Loki grinning on a hike in the Pacific Northwest. Photograph: Claire Elise Thompson/Grist

COP30’s biofuel gamble could cost the global food supply — and the planet

What was once considered a climate holy grail comes with serious tradeoffs. The world wants more of it anyway.

First the plant stalk is harvested, shredded, and crushed. The extracted juice is then combined with bacteria and yeast in large bioreactors, where the sugars are metabolized and converted into ethanol and carbon dioxide. From there, the liquid is typically distilled to maximize ethanol concentration, before it is blended with gasoline.  You know the final products as biofuels — mostly made from food crops like sugarcane and corn, and endorsed by everyone from agricultural lobbyists to activists and billionaires. Biofuels were developed decades ago to be cheaper, greener alternatives to planet-polluting petrol. As adoption has expanded — now to the point of a pro-biofuel agenda being pushed this week at COP30 in Belém, Brazil — their environmental and food accessibility footprint has remained a source of fierce debate.  The governments of Brazil, Italy, Japan, and India are spearheading a new pledge calling for the rapid global expansion of biofuels as a commitment to decarbonizing transportation energy.  Though the text of the pledge itself is vague, as most COP pledges tend to be, the target embedded in an accompanying International Energy Agency report is clear: expand the global use of so-called sustainable fuels from 2024 levels by at least four times, so that by 2035, sustainable fuels cover 10 percent of all global road transport demand, 15 percent of aviation demand, and 35 percent of shipping fuel demand. By Friday, the last official day of COP30, at least 23 countries have joined the pledge — while Brazilian delegates have been working “hand in hand with industry groups” to get language backing biofuels into the final summit deal.  “Latin America, South East Asia, Africa — they need to improve their efficiency, their energy, and Brazil has a model for this [in its rollout of biofuels],” Roberto Rodrigues, Brazil’s special envoy for agriculture at the summit, said on a COP panel last weekend. As of the time of this story’s publication, the pro-biofuel language hadn’t made it into the latest draft text that outlines the main outcome of the summit released Friday — although it appears the summit could end without a deal.  Read Next At COP30 in Brazil, countries plan to armor themselves against a warming world Zoya Teirstein Though scientists continue to experiment with utilizing other raw materials for biofuels — a list which includes agricultural and forestry waste, cooking oils, and algae — the bulk of feedstocks almost exclusively come from the fields. Different types of food crops are used for different types of biofuels; sugary and starchy crops, such as sugar cane, wheat, and corn, are often made into ethanol; while oily crops, like soybeans, rapeseed, and palm oil, are largely used for biodiesel.  The cycle goes a little like this: Farmers, desperate to replace cropland lost to biofuel production, raze more forests and plow up more grasslands, resulting in deforestation that tends to release far more carbon than burning biofuels saves. But as large-scale production continues to expand, there may be insufficient land, water, and energy available for another big biofuel boom — prompting many researchers and climate activists to question whether countries should be aiming to scale these markets at all. (Thomson Reuters reported that global biofuel production has increased ninefold since 2000.) Biofuels account for the vast majority of “sustainable fuels” currently used worldwide. An analysis by a clean transport advocacy organization published last month found that, because of the indirect impacts to farming and land use, biofuels are responsible globally for 16 percent more CO2 emissions than the planet-polluting fossil fuels they replace. In fact, the report surmises that by 2030, biofuel crops could require land equivalent to the size of France. More than 40 million hectares of Earth’s cropland is already devoted to biofuel feedstocks, an area roughly the size of Paraguay. The EU Deforestation-Free Regulation, or EUDR, cites soybeans among the commodities driving deforestation worldwide. “While countries are right to transition away from fossil fuels, they also need to ensure their plans don’t trigger unintended consequences, such as more deforestation either at home or abroad,” said Janet Ranganathan, managing director of strategy, learning, and results at the World Resources Institute in a statement responding to the Belém pledge. She added that rapidly expanding global biofuel production would have “significant implications for the world’s land, especially without guardrails to prevent large-scale expansion of land dedicated to biofuels, which drives ecosystem loss.” Other environmental issues found to be associated with converting food crops into biofuels include water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, air pollution, and soil erosion. One study, conducted a decade ago, showed that, when accounting for all the inputs needed to produce different varieties of ethanol or biodiesel — machinery, seeds, water, electricity, fertilizers, transportation, and more — producing fuel-grade ethanol or biodiesel requires significantly more energy input than it creates.  Read Next ‘Everyone is exhausted’: First week of COP30 marked by frustration with slow progress Bob Berwyn, Inside Climate News Nonetheless, it’s not a shock to see Brazil betting big on biofuels at COP30. In Brazil, biofuels make up roughly a quarter of transportation fuels — a remarkably high proportion compared to most other countries. And that share, dominated by sugarcane ethanol, is still on an upward climb, with the Belém pledge evidence of the country’s intended trajectory.  A spokesperson from Brazil’s foreign affairs ministry told The Guardian that the “proponents of the pledge (which include Japan, Italy, India, among others) are calling upon countries to support quadrupling production and use of sustainable fuels — a group of gaseous and liquid fuels that include e-fuels, biogases, biofuels, hydrogen and its derivatives.” They added that the goal is based on the new IEA report that underscores the production increase as necessary to aggressively reduce emissions. That report suggests that if current and proposed national and international policies are implemented and fully legislated, global biofuel use and production would double by 2035. “The word ‘sustainable’ is not used lightly, neither in the report nor in the pledge,” the spokesperson said.  The issue, of course, is in how emissions footprints of something like ethanol fuel production are even measured. Much like many other climate sources, scientists argue that tracking greenhouse gas emissions linked to ethanol fuel should account for emissions at every stage — production, processing, distribution, and vehicle use. Yet that isn’t often the case: in fact, a 2024 paper found that Brazil’s national biofuel policy does not account for all direct and indirect emissions in its calculation.  The exclusions are evident of a larger trend, according to University of Minnesota environmental scientist Jason Hill. “Overall, either those studies have not included [direct and indirect emissions], or they found ways to spread those impacts over anticipated production, decades, centuries, or so forth, that tend to dilute those effects. So the accounting methods aren’t really consistent with what the best science shows,” said Hill, who studies the environmental and economic consequences of food, energy, and biofuel production.  In short: More biofuels means either more intensive agriculture on a smaller share of available cropland, which has its own detrimental environmental effects, or expansion of cropland, and the land-use emissions and environmental impacts that can carry. “Biofuel production today is already a bad idea. And doubling [that] is doubling down on an existing problem,” said Hill.  Read Next COP30 has big plans to save the rainforest. Indigenous activists say it’s not enough. Frida Garza & Miacel Spotted Elk Moreover, diverting crops like corn and soybeans from dinner plates to fuel tanks doesn’t just spark brutal competition for land and resources, it can also spike food prices and leave the world’s most vulnerable populations with less to eat.  A 2022 analysis of the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, the world’s largest biofuel program, found that it has led to increased food prices for Americans, with corn prices rising by 30 percent and other crops such as soybean and wheat spiking by around 20 percent. This then set off a domino effect: Increasing annual nationwide fertilizer use by up to 8 percent and water quality degradants by up to 5 percent. The carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the mandate has ended up at least equaling the planet-polluting effects of gasoline.  “Biofuel mandates essentially create a baseline demand that can leave food crops by the wayside,” says Ginni Braich, a data scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder who has worked as a senior advisor to government clean technology and emission reduction programs. That’s because of the issue with supply and demand of food crops — higher competition for feedstocks hikes up the prices of food, feed, and farming inputs.  When there are biofuel mandates, which the IEA report underlying the Belém pledge recommends, demand remains inelastic — no matter the changes in yields, growing and weather conditions, prices, or markets. Say there is a huge drought that decimates crop yields, as one example, the baseline demand of biofuels still needs to be met despite depleted food stocks. In terms of supply, increasing growing area for biofuels typically means less area available to grow food crops — which can cause prices to surge alongside supply shortages, and spike costs of seed, inputs, and land. Nutritional implications should also be taken into account, according to Braich. Not only do people’s diets tend to shift when food gets more costly, but cropping patterns are already revealing adverse shifts in dietary diversity, which could be exacerbated by a further concentration on fewer crops. The Belém pledge, and Brazil’s intention to lead a global expansion of the biofuels market, does not bode well for people’s food accessibility nor for the future of the planet, warns Braich.  “It seems quite paradoxical for Brazil to promote the large-scale expansion of biofuels and also be seen as a protector of forests,” she said. “Is it better than decarbonization and fossil fuel divestment rhetoric without actual transition pathways? Yes, but in a lot of ways it is also greenwashing.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline COP30’s biofuel gamble could cost the global food supply — and the planet on Nov 21, 2025.

Iran's Capital Has Run Out of Water, Forcing It to Move

The decision to move Iran’s capital is partly driven by climate change, but experts say decades of human error and action are also to blame

November 21, 20252 min readIran's Capital Is Moving. The Reason Is an Ecological CatastropheThe move is partly driven by climate change, but experts say decades of human error and action are also to blameBy Humberto Basilio edited by Claire CameronA dry water feature in Tehran on November 9, 2025 TTA KENARE/AFP/Getty ImagesTehran can no longer remain the capital of Iran amid a deepening ecological crisis and acute water shortage.The situation in Tehran is the result of “a perfect storm of climate change and corruption,” says Michael Rubin, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.“We no longer have a choice,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reportedly told officials on Friday.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.Instead, Iranian officials are considering moving the capital to the country’s southern coast. But experts say the proposal does not change the reality for the nearly ten million people who live in Tehran, who are now suffering the consequences of a decades-long decline in water supply.Since at least 2008, scientists have warned that unchecked groundwater pumping for the city and for agriculture was rapidly draining its aquifers. The overuse did not just deplete underground reserves—it destroyed them, as the land compressed and sank irreversibly. One recent study found that Iran’s central plateau, where most of the country’s aquifers are located, is sinking by more than 35 centimeters each year. As a result, the aquifers lose about 1.7 billion cubic meters of water annually as the ground is permanently crushed, leaving no space for underground water storage to recover, says Darío Solano, a geoscientist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.“We saw this coming,” says Solano.Other major cities like Cape Town, Mexico City, Jakarta and parts of California are also facing day zero scenarios as they sink and run out of water.This is not the first time Iran’s capital has moved. Over the centuries, it has shifted many times, from Isfahan to Tabriz to Shiraz. Some of these former capitals still thrive while others exist only as ruins, says Rubin. But this marks the first time the Iranian government has moved the capital because of an ecological catastrophe.Yet, Rubin says, “it would be a mistake to look at this only through the lens of climate change.” Water, land and wastewater mismanagement and corruption have made the crisis worse, he says. If the capital moves to the remote Makran coast in the south, it could cost more than $100 billion dollars. The region is known for its harsh climate and difficult terrain, and some experts have doubts about its viability as a national center. Relocating a capital is often driven more by politics than by environmental concerns, says Linda Shi, a social scientist and urban planner at Cornell University. “Climate change is not the thing that is causing it, but it is a convenient factor to blame in order to avoid taking responsibility” for poor political decisions, she says.It’s Time to Stand Up for ScienceIf you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

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.