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.

California Cut $200 Million for Extreme Heat and Other Climate Disasters. Voters can reverse that.

News Feed
Friday, September 27, 2024

A blistering September heat wave roasted residents for a week and drove temperatures to 112 in Downtown Los Angeles, one degree shy of the record set 14 years ago. Some residents left their homes in search of buildings with air conditioning. Others, living on the streets, soaked their clothes in drinking fountains in local parks in an effort to cool off. In MacArthur Park, Michael Martinez crouched shirtless in a sliver of shade cast by a short palm tree. He sipped water mixed with a red hydration additive from a plastic jug.  “Why is the weather changing, why does it seem hotter than it’s ever been?” Martinez groaned, sweat beading on his shaved scalp, tattooed with a Dodgers-style “LA.” Despite two decades living on the street, he said he had never felt such heat. Unhoused L.A. resident Michael Martinez seeks shade under a small tree in MacArthur Park during a sweltering heat wave. For Angelenos who don’t live on the coast, long-lasting extreme heat is the “primary climate hazard” they face, according to the city’s Climate Emergency Mobilization Office. Concrete and asphalt absorb heat while a lack of trees means less shade and cooling water vapor.  Months before the post-Labor Day heat spell, Gov. Gavin Newsom slashed millions of dollars from programs that would have helped cities adapt to extreme heat. Prodded by Newsom, the California Legislature rescinded or delayed $209.9 million for programs to prepare for climate disasters such as extreme heat waves, devastating wildfires, Pacific Ocean storm surges and floods. Half the cuts targeted programs to expand cooling centers and implement long-term solutions, such as increasing the shade canopy and using building materials that deflect the sun’s rays. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research said the cuts won’t impact grant funding this year. But they will impact future funding rounds. One program to support heat planning in vulnerable communities in California was canceled — resulting in a Los Angeles-based proposal getting scrapped.  Voters, however, could claw back some of the funding if they approve Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond, on the Nov. 5 ballot. The bond would pay for a wide swath of climate-focused capital infrastructure. It is supported by the Nature Conservancy and other environmental groups. Newsom hasn’t weighed in on Prop. 4.  The bond includes $3.8 billion to build out infrastructure to recycle water and improve flood control systems such as levees; $1.5 billion to limit damage from wildfires by clearing forest vegetation and fire-proofing buildings, among other preparatory measures; and $1.2 billion for fortifying the state’s coast in the face of rising sea levels.  A smaller amount, $450 million, is earmarked for combating extreme heat. For residents of Los Angeles — home to the state’s biggest voting bloc — memories of the miserable September swelter may still be fresh when they head to the polls.  The bond restores half the money cut from the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, which coordinates efforts to address extreme heat and so-called urban heat islands. About $200 million is set aside for green spaces in “park-poor communities,” and the rest would go to a program that uses cap-and-trade fees to pay for things such as cooling surfaces and tree planting. This year’s budget downsizing meant that a plan to “cultivate leadership at the neighborhood level” to put helpful information into residents’ hands during heat waves would not be funded either, said Maro Kakoussian, director of Climate & Health Programs for Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles. Maria Sanchez, 93, at the Lincoln Heights Senior Citizen Center, designated by the city of L.A. as a public cooling center. The group’s proposal, co-submitted with Los Angeles County’s Department of Public Health, would have assisted residents by connecting them with resources such as cooling centers and involving them in city-wide heat preparations in South Los Angeles, Wilmington, and Pacoima, communities which historically “haven’t been invested in,” said Kakoussian.  Even with the bond, these kinds of initiatives still may not see new financing. The bond would fund only capital-intensive projects, such as the construction of more cooling centers. It is not intended to pay for additional staff who could spread the word about these resources.  On Sept. 6, the heat wave’s peak, gaps in local emergency plans for heat events were apparent. A county notification about “dangerous heat” didn’t go out until the following day, and only then to those who had already opted to receive such notifications. A website featuring a map with cooling centers — mostly public libraries — splash pads and hydration stations was too small to discern and difficult to navigate on a phone. At the Lincoln Heights Senior Center, one of four cooling centers in the city designed to shelter more people than most libraries, a chatty group seated at a long table planned to stay until the sun went down. Most already frequented the center to play games of lotería, eat lunch and engage in activities including yoga.  Sitting alone with a stack of books at another table was Jorge Reyes, a retired food server for a hotel. The home he shares with his two adult sons once had a window air conditioner, but the electricity bills were too expensive. During past heat waves, Reyes, who said his blood pressure is aggravated by the heat, sometimes visited grocery stores and a Rite-Aid just to stay cool. But here he could sit down comfortably. He found the location by googling “public cooling centers.” “We need more announcements and information in Spanish,” Reyes said, noting that only a couple dozen people had visited the center.  Jorge Reyes seeks relief from triple-digit heat at the Lincoln Heights Senior Citizen Center. Both the city and county submitted grant applications to the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program to spruce up parks and build notification systems and maps of cooling centers. The city requested money to marshal first responders to deliver medical aid to communities and unhoused people during heat waves.  Spokespeople for the city and county declined to say how much they requested. Abby Edwards, the manager of the state’s Adaptation Planning Grant Program, said the extreme heat program will award $20 million in grants this fall. Los Angeles hopes to roll out a Heat Action and Resilience Plan by late 2026 depending on “budget constraints.” The initiative would help communities adapt and strengthen resilience to extreme heat.  Meanwhile, greenhouse gases continue to trap heat in the atmosphere, altering the climate. Los Angeles will continue to see more days with temperatures above 90 F, according to a state climate assessment. Opponents of the climate bond have balked at its cost. The state of California will have to pay bond purchasers about $6 billion in interest on top of the principal.  And some of those purchasers will likely be banks that also fund fossil fuel projects, which emit most of the world’s climate pollution — possibly negating, in a broad sense, state climate measures. But the bond nudges California in the right direction, even if it will pay only for infrastructure and not outreach or administrative costs, said Melissa Romero, deputy legislative director for California Environmental Voters.  “The climate bond is something additional and not in replacement of funding needed from the general fund every year,” Romero said. Copyright 2024 Capital & Main. All photos by Barbara Davidson.

Proposition 4 would fund infrastructure to relieve brutally hot days such as those that just scorched Los Angeles. The post California Cut $200 Million for Extreme Heat and Other Climate Disasters. Voters can reverse that. appeared first on .

A blistering September heat wave roasted residents for a week and drove temperatures to 112 in Downtown Los Angeles, one degree shy of the record set 14 years ago.

Some residents left their homes in search of buildings with air conditioning. Others, living on the streets, soaked their clothes in drinking fountains in local parks in an effort to cool off.

In MacArthur Park, Michael Martinez crouched shirtless in a sliver of shade cast by a short palm tree. He sipped water mixed with a red hydration additive from a plastic jug. 

“Why is the weather changing, why does it seem hotter than it’s ever been?” Martinez groaned, sweat beading on his shaved scalp, tattooed with a Dodgers-style “LA.” Despite two decades living on the street, he said he had never felt such heat.

Unhoused L.A. resident Michael Martinez seeks shade under a small tree in MacArthur Park during a sweltering heat wave.

For Angelenos who don’t live on the coast, long-lasting extreme heat is the “primary climate hazard” they face, according to the city’s Climate Emergency Mobilization Office. Concrete and asphalt absorb heat while a lack of trees means less shade and cooling water vapor. 

Months before the post-Labor Day heat spell, Gov. Gavin Newsom slashed millions of dollars from programs that would have helped cities adapt to extreme heat.

Prodded by Newsom, the California Legislature rescinded or delayed $209.9 million for programs to prepare for climate disasters such as extreme heat waves, devastating wildfires, Pacific Ocean storm surges and floods. Half the cuts targeted programs to expand cooling centers and implement long-term solutions, such as increasing the shade canopy and using building materials that deflect the sun’s rays.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research said the cuts won’t impact grant funding this year. But they will impact future funding rounds. One program to support heat planning in vulnerable communities in California was canceled — resulting in a Los Angeles-based proposal getting scrapped. 

Voters, however, could claw back some of the funding if they approve Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond, on the Nov. 5 ballot. The bond would pay for a wide swath of climate-focused capital infrastructure. It is supported by the Nature Conservancy and other environmental groups. Newsom hasn’t weighed in on Prop. 4. 

The bond includes $3.8 billion to build out infrastructure to recycle water and improve flood control systems such as levees; $1.5 billion to limit damage from wildfires by clearing forest vegetation and fire-proofing buildings, among other preparatory measures; and $1.2 billion for fortifying the state’s coast in the face of rising sea levels. 

A smaller amount, $450 million, is earmarked for combating extreme heat. For residents of Los Angeles — home to the state’s biggest voting bloc — memories of the miserable September swelter may still be fresh when they head to the polls. 

The bond restores half the money cut from the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, which coordinates efforts to address extreme heat and so-called urban heat islands. About $200 million is set aside for green spaces in “park-poor communities,” and the rest would go to a program that uses cap-and-trade fees to pay for things such as cooling surfaces and tree planting.

This year’s budget downsizing meant that a plan to “cultivate leadership at the neighborhood level” to put helpful information into residents’ hands during heat waves would not be funded either, said Maro Kakoussian, director of Climate & Health Programs for Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles.

Maria Sanchez, 93, at the Lincoln Heights Senior Citizen Center, designated by the city of L.A. as a public cooling center.

The group’s proposal, co-submitted with Los Angeles County’s Department of Public Health, would have assisted residents by connecting them with resources such as cooling centers and involving them in city-wide heat preparations in South Los Angeles, Wilmington, and Pacoima, communities which historically “haven’t been invested in,” said Kakoussian. 

Even with the bond, these kinds of initiatives still may not see new financing. The bond would fund only capital-intensive projects, such as the construction of more cooling centers. It is not intended to pay for additional staff who could spread the word about these resources. 

On Sept. 6, the heat wave’s peak, gaps in local emergency plans for heat events were apparent.

A county notification about “dangerous heat” didn’t go out until the following day, and only then to those who had already opted to receive such notifications. A website featuring a map with cooling centers — mostly public libraries — splash pads and hydration stations was too small to discern and difficult to navigate on a phone.

At the Lincoln Heights Senior Center, one of four cooling centers in the city designed to shelter more people than most libraries, a chatty group seated at a long table planned to stay until the sun went down. Most already frequented the center to play games of lotería, eat lunch and engage in activities including yoga. 

Sitting alone with a stack of books at another table was Jorge Reyes, a retired food server for a hotel. The home he shares with his two adult sons once had a window air conditioner, but the electricity bills were too expensive.

During past heat waves, Reyes, who said his blood pressure is aggravated by the heat, sometimes visited grocery stores and a Rite-Aid just to stay cool. But here he could sit down comfortably. He found the location by googling “public cooling centers.”

“We need more announcements and information in Spanish,” Reyes said, noting that only a couple dozen people had visited the center. 

Jorge Reyes seeks relief from triple-digit heat at the Lincoln Heights Senior Citizen Center.

Both the city and county submitted grant applications to the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program to spruce up parks and build notification systems and maps of cooling centers. The city requested money to marshal first responders to deliver medical aid to communities and unhoused people during heat waves. 

Spokespeople for the city and county declined to say how much they requested. Abby Edwards, the manager of the state’s Adaptation Planning Grant Program, said the extreme heat program will award $20 million in grants this fall.

Los Angeles hopes to roll out a Heat Action and Resilience Plan by late 2026 depending on “budget constraints.” The initiative would help communities adapt and strengthen resilience to extreme heat. 

Meanwhile, greenhouse gases continue to trap heat in the atmosphere, altering the climate. Los Angeles will continue to see more days with temperatures above 90 F, according to a state climate assessment.

Opponents of the climate bond have balked at its cost. The state of California will have to pay bond purchasers about $6 billion in interest on top of the principal. 

And some of those purchasers will likely be banks that also fund fossil fuel projects, which emit most of the world’s climate pollution — possibly negating, in a broad sense, state climate measures.

But the bond nudges California in the right direction, even if it will pay only for infrastructure and not outreach or administrative costs, said Melissa Romero, deputy legislative director for California Environmental Voters. 

“The climate bond is something additional and not in replacement of funding needed from the general fund every year,” Romero said.


Copyright 2024 Capital & Main.

All photos by Barbara Davidson.

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.