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 wants to harness more than half its land to combat climate change by 2045. Here's how

News Feed
Monday, April 22, 2024

California has unveiled an ambitious plan to help combat the worsening climate crisis with one of its invaluable assets: its land. Over the next 20 years, the state will work to transform more than half of its 100 million acres into multi-benefit landscapes that can absorb more carbon than they release, officials announced Monday. The so-called nature-based solutions will span natural and working lands such as forests, farms, grasslands, chaparral, deserts and other types of ecosystems and urban environments. Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science. The first-of-its-kind plan — part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s California Climate Commitment geared toward helping the state reach carbon neutrality by 2045 — includes 81 targets that will help harness the power of millions of acres across the Golden State. “We’re setting aggressive and ambitious new targets to use California’s lands to fight the climate crisis,” Newsom said in a statement. “This scale of action is unprecedented, and yet another example of California punching above its weight. From restoring and conserving lands to greening our urban spaces and treating more acres to prevent wildfires, we’re protecting nature and allowing it to work for our communities.”Among the 2045 targets announced Monday are 33.5 million acres that will be managed to reduce wildfire risk, mostly through fuel reduction activities and beneficial fire practices. Those practices include cultural and prescribed burns, which are intentional fires designed to sear through overgrown vegetation and other material that can act as fuel for flames. U.S. Forest Service firefighters in the Angeles National Forest burn piles of forest debris below Mt. Baldy in November 2023. Controlled burns are part of the service’s forest management practices. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times) To get there, the state seeks to conduct 1.5 million acres of wildfire risk reduction activity per year by 2030; 2 million acres per year by 2038, and 2.5 million acres per year by 2045, most of which will be applied to forests, shrublands, chaparral and grasslands, which together comprise about 67% of the state.(By comparison, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection completed about 105,000 acres of fuel treatment, including 36,000 acres of prescribed burns during the 2023 fiscal year, according to agency data. The U.S. Forest Service completed about 312,000 acres of combined treatment and burns).The plan also calls for 11.9 million acres of forestland to be managed for biodiversity protection, carbon storage and water supply protection by 2045, and 2.7 million acres of shrublands and chaparral to be managed for carbon storage, resilience and habitat connectivity, among other efforts.“We’ve had a really strong environmental conservation movement in California, and we’re clearly strong on climate action, but we haven’t integrated nature into our climate agenda,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s natural resources secretary. “And so this is really the next tangible step to do that.”Crowfoot noted that nature-based solutions are gaining attention not only in the state, but also on the international stage, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change validating their critical importance in ongoing efforts to stabilize the climate. “This is all about improving the health and the resilience of our lands, whether that’s forests and deserts and farms and coastal areas,” Crowfoot said. “Healthy, resilient lands ... do a better job absorbing and storing carbon, and avoid emissions.” But the move was also prompted by the results of California’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, which analyzed for the first time the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced and absorbed by the state’s lands. The analysis found that California’s lands currently emit more than they absorb — principally in the form of wildfires, which spew carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions. In fact, a recent study found that California wildfires in 2020 — the state’s worst fire season on record — released about 127 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, or almost twice the tonnage of greenhouse gases as the total amount of CO2 reductions made since 2003. “This shift from carbon sink to carbon emitter is largely due to historic land use decisions, including disconnection from beneficial land management practices utilized by California Native American tribes, and the accelerating impacts of climate change,” the governor’s office said. “Modeling suggests that aggressive near-term efforts to increase climate action on California’s lands will put this sector on the path to course correction.” Beaches are included in the state’s plan to use nature to mitigate climate change. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times) The plan also comes on the heels of Earth’s hottest year on record, which has seen scientists and public officials alike sounding alarms about rapid global changes made worse by fossil fuel emissions. What’s more, the planet is teetering on the brink of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming over pre-industrial levels — an international benchmark for avoiding the worst effects of climate change — and is already beginning to see worsening wildfires, stronger storms, more severe droughts and accelerating species loss, among other effects. Smog hangs in the air as the sun sets after a hot day in Los Angeles last fall. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times) Reducing carbon emissions is key to preventing such outcomes from getting worse, experts say. The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hovering around 425 parts per million — well beyond safe limits. “The science is very clear: Shifting our lands from a source to a sink requires aggressive near-term action, and the longer we wait, the harder it will become,” said Lauren Sanchez, Newsom’s climate advisor. Other items outlined in the plan include managing 3.4 million acres of croplands for healthy soils, drought resilience and below-ground biodiversity, as well as conservation. This includes about 152,000 acres per year by 2030; 206,000 acres per year by 2038, and 209,500 acres per year by 2045. Much of this work will include practices that sequester carbon and provide multiple benefits on working lands, such as increased water holding capacity and improved nutrient cycling, said Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. A tractor plows a field in the Cuyama Valley in Central California. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times) Indeed, agricultural emissions in the United States account for about 10% of the country’s emissions, according to the latest greenhouse gas emission inventory from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The California Air Resources Board estimates that in California, agriculture is the source of 8% of total inventoried greenhouse gas emissions. “I know that with the continued investment, cooperation and partnerships that we’re building, we can continue to be a leader in the nation of putting these practices on the soil, and being [a] carbon sink,” Ross said. The governor plans to plant thousands of trees in urban areas. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) But it’s not just agricultural land that will play a part in the state’s land-use transformation. The program also calls for 4.2 million trees to be planted across California, which will help remove carbon, combat heat and increase access to nature. Studies have shown that areas without trees can simmer several degrees hotter than their leafier counterparts, with poor neighborhoods often bearing the brunt of extreme temperatures. Trees and vegetation also contribute to more permeable soil that creates more opportunities for water to seep into the ground and replenish groundwater aquifers that have been sapped by agriculture, drought and overuse. In fact, many of the projects — which will span more than 40 state agencies, tribal partners and stakeholder groups — will have multiple benefits, said Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board. For example, healthier forests can mean healthier soils and water tables, as well as reduced wildfire risks and improved air quality.The solutions were developed “not just to support carbon storage and help achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, but also for the much larger public health and environmental benefits that come with restored and sustained ecosystem health,” Randolph said. She added that the phased rollout of the targets means that many Californians will begin to see benefits long before the 2045 deadline. The governor’s plan also includes 1.6 million acres of grasslands managed to restore native grasslands and protect biodiversity; and 1.5 million acres of sparsely vegetated lands — such as deserts and beaches — managed to protect fragile ecosystems. More than 230,000 acres of wetlands and seagrasses will be managed to protect water supply, deliver carbon benefits and buffer communities from flooding.The cumulative targets amount to nearly 60 million acres across California by 2045, although it’s possible some projects will overlap, officials said. There is currently no specific price tag attached to the work. The state only recently saw several of its key climate programs placed on the chopping block as Newsom seeks to close a massive budget deficit. The work will “require significant investment and levels of action collectively,” acknowledged Amanda Hansen, deputy secretary for climate change with the Natural Resources Agency. However, she noted that according to the Scoping Plan, the cost for delivering on the targets is significantly less than the estimated costs for addressing emissions in fossil fuel sectors.The targets are intended to help guide state policy and investment, Hansen said, and will work in conjunction with the Scoping Plan and with Assembly Bill 1757, a 2022 bill that required the state agencies to collaborate on setting targets for carbon sequestration and nature-based solutions. The Newsom administration has invested $9.6 billion in nature-based solutions since 2020.Officials described the plan as “among the most comprehensive in the world” and said they believe it can act as a model for other states and regions.“These climate targets are a big deal for California, for the nation, and for the world,” Sanchez said.

State officials unveiled 81 targets to transform millions of acres in the Golden State into landscapes that can absorb more carbon than they release by 2045.

California has unveiled an ambitious plan to help combat the worsening climate crisis with one of its invaluable assets: its land.

Over the next 20 years, the state will work to transform more than half of its 100 million acres into multi-benefit landscapes that can absorb more carbon than they release, officials announced Monday. The so-called nature-based solutions will span natural and working lands such as forests, farms, grasslands, chaparral, deserts and other types of ecosystems and urban environments.

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

The first-of-its-kind plan — part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s California Climate Commitment geared toward helping the state reach carbon neutrality by 2045 — includes 81 targets that will help harness the power of millions of acres across the Golden State.

“We’re setting aggressive and ambitious new targets to use California’s lands to fight the climate crisis,” Newsom said in a statement. “This scale of action is unprecedented, and yet another example of California punching above its weight. From restoring and conserving lands to greening our urban spaces and treating more acres to prevent wildfires, we’re protecting nature and allowing it to work for our communities.”

Among the 2045 targets announced Monday are 33.5 million acres that will be managed to reduce wildfire risk, mostly through fuel reduction activities and beneficial fire practices. Those practices include cultural and prescribed burns, which are intentional fires designed to sear through overgrown vegetation and other material that can act as fuel for flames.

U.S. Forest Service firefighters in the Angeles National Forest burn piles of forest debris below Mt. Baldy.

U.S. Forest Service firefighters in the Angeles National Forest burn piles of forest debris below Mt. Baldy in November 2023. Controlled burns are part of the service’s forest management practices.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

To get there, the state seeks to conduct 1.5 million acres of wildfire risk reduction activity per year by 2030; 2 million acres per year by 2038, and 2.5 million acres per year by 2045, most of which will be applied to forests, shrublands, chaparral and grasslands, which together comprise about 67% of the state.

(By comparison, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection completed about 105,000 acres of fuel treatment, including 36,000 acres of prescribed burns during the 2023 fiscal year, according to agency data. The U.S. Forest Service completed about 312,000 acres of combined treatment and burns).

The plan also calls for 11.9 million acres of forestland to be managed for biodiversity protection, carbon storage and water supply protection by 2045, and 2.7 million acres of shrublands and chaparral to be managed for carbon storage, resilience and habitat connectivity, among other efforts.

“We’ve had a really strong environmental conservation movement in California, and we’re clearly strong on climate action, but we haven’t integrated nature into our climate agenda,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s natural resources secretary. “And so this is really the next tangible step to do that.”

Crowfoot noted that nature-based solutions are gaining attention not only in the state, but also on the international stage, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change validating their critical importance in ongoing efforts to stabilize the climate.

“This is all about improving the health and the resilience of our lands, whether that’s forests and deserts and farms and coastal areas,” Crowfoot said. “Healthy, resilient lands ... do a better job absorbing and storing carbon, and avoid emissions.”

But the move was also prompted by the results of California’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, which analyzed for the first time the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced and absorbed by the state’s lands. The analysis found that California’s lands currently emit more than they absorb — principally in the form of wildfires, which spew carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions.

In fact, a recent study found that California wildfires in 2020 — the state’s worst fire season on record — released about 127 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, or almost twice the tonnage of greenhouse gases as the total amount of CO2 reductions made since 2003.

“This shift from carbon sink to carbon emitter is largely due to historic land use decisions, including disconnection from beneficial land management practices utilized by California Native American tribes, and the accelerating impacts of climate change,” the governor’s office said. “Modeling suggests that aggressive near-term efforts to increase climate action on California’s lands will put this sector on the path to course correction.”

Beachgoers take in the cooling mist of the ocean as the sun sets on Huntington Beach.

Beaches are included in the state’s plan to use nature to mitigate climate change.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

The plan also comes on the heels of Earth’s hottest year on record, which has seen scientists and public officials alike sounding alarms about rapid global changes made worse by fossil fuel emissions.

What’s more, the planet is teetering on the brink of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming over pre-industrial levels — an international benchmark for avoiding the worst effects of climate change — and is already beginning to see worsening wildfires, stronger storms, more severe droughts and accelerating species loss, among other effects.

A smoggy sky, with the downtown Los Angeles skyline and a freeway packed with cars

Smog hangs in the air as the sun sets after a hot day in Los Angeles last fall.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

Reducing carbon emissions is key to preventing such outcomes from getting worse, experts say. The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hovering around 425 parts per million — well beyond safe limits.

“The science is very clear: Shifting our lands from a source to a sink requires aggressive near-term action, and the longer we wait, the harder it will become,” said Lauren Sanchez, Newsom’s climate advisor.

Other items outlined in the plan include managing 3.4 million acres of croplands for healthy soils, drought resilience and below-ground biodiversity, as well as conservation. This includes about 152,000 acres per year by 2030; 206,000 acres per year by 2038, and 209,500 acres per year by 2045.

Much of this work will include practices that sequester carbon and provide multiple benefits on working lands, such as increased water holding capacity and improved nutrient cycling, said Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

A tractor plows a field in the Cuyama Valley in October.

A tractor plows a field in the Cuyama Valley in Central California.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

Indeed, agricultural emissions in the United States account for about 10% of the country’s emissions, according to the latest greenhouse gas emission inventory from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The California Air Resources Board estimates that in California, agriculture is the source of 8% of total inventoried greenhouse gas emissions.

“I know that with the continued investment, cooperation and partnerships that we’re building, we can continue to be a leader in the nation of putting these practices on the soil, and being [a] carbon sink,” Ross said.

A man loads up a truck with trees to be planted

The governor plans to plant thousands of trees in urban areas.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

But it’s not just agricultural land that will play a part in the state’s land-use transformation. The program also calls for 4.2 million trees to be planted across California, which will help remove carbon, combat heat and increase access to nature. Studies have shown that areas without trees can simmer several degrees hotter than their leafier counterparts, with poor neighborhoods often bearing the brunt of extreme temperatures.

Trees and vegetation also contribute to more permeable soil that creates more opportunities for water to seep into the ground and replenish groundwater aquifers that have been sapped by agriculture, drought and overuse.

In fact, many of the projects — which will span more than 40 state agencies, tribal partners and stakeholder groups — will have multiple benefits, said Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board. For example, healthier forests can mean healthier soils and water tables, as well as reduced wildfire risks and improved air quality.

The solutions were developed “not just to support carbon storage and help achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, but also for the much larger public health and environmental benefits that come with restored and sustained ecosystem health,” Randolph said. She added that the phased rollout of the targets means that many Californians will begin to see benefits long before the 2045 deadline.

The governor’s plan also includes 1.6 million acres of grasslands managed to restore native grasslands and protect biodiversity; and 1.5 million acres of sparsely vegetated lands — such as deserts and beaches — managed to protect fragile ecosystems. More than 230,000 acres of wetlands and seagrasses will be managed to protect water supply, deliver carbon benefits and buffer communities from flooding.

The cumulative targets amount to nearly 60 million acres across California by 2045, although it’s possible some projects will overlap, officials said.

There is currently no specific price tag attached to the work. The state only recently saw several of its key climate programs placed on the chopping block as Newsom seeks to close a massive budget deficit.

The work will “require significant investment and levels of action collectively,” acknowledged Amanda Hansen, deputy secretary for climate change with the Natural Resources Agency. However, she noted that according to the Scoping Plan, the cost for delivering on the targets is significantly less than the estimated costs for addressing emissions in fossil fuel sectors.

The targets are intended to help guide state policy and investment, Hansen said, and will work in conjunction with the Scoping Plan and with Assembly Bill 1757, a 2022 bill that required the state agencies to collaborate on setting targets for carbon sequestration and nature-based solutions. The Newsom administration has invested $9.6 billion in nature-based solutions since 2020.

Officials described the plan as “among the most comprehensive in the world” and said they believe it can act as a model for other states and regions.

“These climate targets are a big deal for California, for the nation, and for the world,” Sanchez said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Realtors just forced Zillow to hide a key piece of information about buying a home. Here’s why

Until recently, when you looked at a house for sale on Zillow, you could see property-specific scores for the risk of flooding, wildfires, wind from storms and hurricanes, extreme heat, and air quality. The numbers came from First Street, a nonprofit that uses peer-reviewed methodologies to calculate “climate risk.” But Zillow recently removed those scores after pressure from CRMLS, one of the large real-estate listing services that supplies its data. “The reality is these models have been around for over five years,” says Matthew Eby, CEO of First Street, which also provides its data to sites like Realtor.com and Redfin. (Zillow started displaying the information in 2024, but Realtor.com incorporated First Street’s “Flood Scores” in 2020.) “And what’s happened is the market’s gotten very tight. And now they’re looking for ways to try and make it easier to sell homes at the expense of homebuyers.” The California Regional MLS, like others across the country, controls the database that feeds real estate listings to sites like Zillow. The organization said in a statement to the New York Times that it was “suspicious” after seeing predictions of high flood risk in areas that hadn’t flooded in the past. When Fast Company asked for an example of a location, they pointed to a neighborhood in Huntington Beach—but that area actually just flooded last week. In a statement, First Street said that it stands behind the accuracy of its scores. “Our models are built on transparent, peer-reviewed science and are continuously validated against real-world outcomes. In the CRMLS coverage area, during the Los Angeles wildfires, our maps identified over 90% of the homes that ultimately burned as being at severe or extreme risk—our highest risk rating—and 100% as having some level of risk, significantly outperforming CalFire’s official state hazard maps. So when claims are made that our models are inaccurate, we ask for evidence. To date, all the empirical validation shows our science is working as designed and providing better risk insight than the tools the industry has relied on historically.” Zillow’s trust in the data has not changed, and that data is important to consumers: In one survey, it saw that more than 80% of buyers considered the data when shopping for a house. But the company said in a statement that it updated its “climate risk product experience to adhere to varying MLS requirements.” It’s not clear exactly what happened: In response to questions for this story, CRMLS now says it only asked Zillow to remove “predictive numbers” and flood map layers on listings, while Zillow says the MLS board voted to demand they block all of the data. It’s also not clear what would have happened if Zillow hadn’t made any changes, though in theory, the MLS could have stopped giving the site access to its listings. Images of Zillow’s climate risk tools from a 2024 press release [Image: Zillow] Zillow still links to First Street’s website in each listing, so homebuyers can access the information, but it’s less easy to find. The site also still includes a map that consumers can use to view overall neighborhood risk, if they take the extra step to click on checkboxes for flooding, fire, or other hazards. But the main scores are gone. Obviously, seeing that a particular house has a high flood risk or fire risk can hurt sales. Nevertheless, after First Street first launched, the National Association of Realtors put out guidance saying that the information was useful—and that since realtors aren’t experts in things like flood risk, they shouldn’t try to tell buyers themselves that a particular house is safe, even if it hasn’t flooded in the past. First Street’s flood data goes further than that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which uses outdated flood maps. It also incorporates more climate predictions, along with the risk of flooding from heavy rainfall and surface runoff, not just flooding from rivers or the coast. And it includes predictions of small amounts of flooding (for example, whether an inch of water is likely to reach the property). Buyers can dig deeper to figure out how much that amount of flooding might affect a particular house. It’s not surprising that some high risk scores have upset home sellers who haven’t experienced flooding or other problems in the past. But as the climate changes, past experiences don’t guarantee what a property will be like for the next 30 years. Take the example of North Carolina, where some residents hadn’t ever experienced flooding until Hurricane Helene dumped unprecedented rainfall on their neighborhoods. Redfin, another site that uses the data, plans to continue providing it, though sellers have the option to ask for it to be removed from a particular home if they believe it’s inaccurate. (First Street also allows homeowners to ask for their data to be revised if there’s a problem, and then reviews the accuracy.) “Redfin will continue to provide the best-possible estimates of the risks of fires, floods, and storms,” Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather said in a statement. “Homebuyers want to know, because losing a home in a catastrophe is heartbreaking, and insuring against these risks is getting more and more expensive.” Realtor.com is working with CRMLS and data providers to look into the issues raised by the MLS over the scores. “We aim to balance transparency about the evolving environmental risks to what is often a family’s biggest investment, with an understanding that the available data can sometimes be limited,” the company said in a statement. “For this reason we always encourage consumers to consult a local real estate professional for guidance or to learn more. When issues are raised, we work with our data partners to review them and make updates when appropriate.” If more real estate sites take down the scores, it’s likely that some buyers won’t see the information at all. First Street says that while it’s good that Zillow still includes a link to its site, the impact is real. “Whenever you add friction into something, it just is used less,” Eby says. “And so not having that information at the tip of your fingers is definitely going to have an impact on the millions of people that go to Zillow every day to see it.”

Until recently, when you looked at a house for sale on Zillow, you could see property-specific scores for the risk of flooding, wildfires, wind from storms and hurricanes, extreme heat, and air quality. The numbers came from First Street, a nonprofit that uses peer-reviewed methodologies to calculate “climate risk.” But Zillow recently removed those scores after pressure from CRMLS, one of the large real-estate listing services that supplies its data. “The reality is these models have been around for over five years,” says Matthew Eby, CEO of First Street, which also provides its data to sites like Realtor.com and Redfin. (Zillow started displaying the information in 2024, but Realtor.com incorporated First Street’s “Flood Scores” in 2020.) “And what’s happened is the market’s gotten very tight. And now they’re looking for ways to try and make it easier to sell homes at the expense of homebuyers.” The California Regional MLS, like others across the country, controls the database that feeds real estate listings to sites like Zillow. The organization said in a statement to the New York Times that it was “suspicious” after seeing predictions of high flood risk in areas that hadn’t flooded in the past. When Fast Company asked for an example of a location, they pointed to a neighborhood in Huntington Beach—but that area actually just flooded last week. In a statement, First Street said that it stands behind the accuracy of its scores. “Our models are built on transparent, peer-reviewed science and are continuously validated against real-world outcomes. In the CRMLS coverage area, during the Los Angeles wildfires, our maps identified over 90% of the homes that ultimately burned as being at severe or extreme risk—our highest risk rating—and 100% as having some level of risk, significantly outperforming CalFire’s official state hazard maps. So when claims are made that our models are inaccurate, we ask for evidence. To date, all the empirical validation shows our science is working as designed and providing better risk insight than the tools the industry has relied on historically.” Zillow’s trust in the data has not changed, and that data is important to consumers: In one survey, it saw that more than 80% of buyers considered the data when shopping for a house. But the company said in a statement that it updated its “climate risk product experience to adhere to varying MLS requirements.” It’s not clear exactly what happened: In response to questions for this story, CRMLS now says it only asked Zillow to remove “predictive numbers” and flood map layers on listings, while Zillow says the MLS board voted to demand they block all of the data. It’s also not clear what would have happened if Zillow hadn’t made any changes, though in theory, the MLS could have stopped giving the site access to its listings. Images of Zillow’s climate risk tools from a 2024 press release [Image: Zillow] Zillow still links to First Street’s website in each listing, so homebuyers can access the information, but it’s less easy to find. The site also still includes a map that consumers can use to view overall neighborhood risk, if they take the extra step to click on checkboxes for flooding, fire, or other hazards. But the main scores are gone. Obviously, seeing that a particular house has a high flood risk or fire risk can hurt sales. Nevertheless, after First Street first launched, the National Association of Realtors put out guidance saying that the information was useful—and that since realtors aren’t experts in things like flood risk, they shouldn’t try to tell buyers themselves that a particular house is safe, even if it hasn’t flooded in the past. First Street’s flood data goes further than that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which uses outdated flood maps. It also incorporates more climate predictions, along with the risk of flooding from heavy rainfall and surface runoff, not just flooding from rivers or the coast. And it includes predictions of small amounts of flooding (for example, whether an inch of water is likely to reach the property). Buyers can dig deeper to figure out how much that amount of flooding might affect a particular house. It’s not surprising that some high risk scores have upset home sellers who haven’t experienced flooding or other problems in the past. But as the climate changes, past experiences don’t guarantee what a property will be like for the next 30 years. Take the example of North Carolina, where some residents hadn’t ever experienced flooding until Hurricane Helene dumped unprecedented rainfall on their neighborhoods. Redfin, another site that uses the data, plans to continue providing it, though sellers have the option to ask for it to be removed from a particular home if they believe it’s inaccurate. (First Street also allows homeowners to ask for their data to be revised if there’s a problem, and then reviews the accuracy.) “Redfin will continue to provide the best-possible estimates of the risks of fires, floods, and storms,” Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather said in a statement. “Homebuyers want to know, because losing a home in a catastrophe is heartbreaking, and insuring against these risks is getting more and more expensive.” Realtor.com is working with CRMLS and data providers to look into the issues raised by the MLS over the scores. “We aim to balance transparency about the evolving environmental risks to what is often a family’s biggest investment, with an understanding that the available data can sometimes be limited,” the company said in a statement. “For this reason we always encourage consumers to consult a local real estate professional for guidance or to learn more. When issues are raised, we work with our data partners to review them and make updates when appropriate.” If more real estate sites take down the scores, it’s likely that some buyers won’t see the information at all. First Street says that while it’s good that Zillow still includes a link to its site, the impact is real. “Whenever you add friction into something, it just is used less,” Eby says. “And so not having that information at the tip of your fingers is definitely going to have an impact on the millions of people that go to Zillow every day to see it.”

Researchers Slightly Lower Study's Estimate of Drop in Global Income Due to Climate Change

Researchers who examined climate change’s potential effect on the global economy say data errors led them to slightly overstate an expected drop in income over the next 25 years

The authors of a study that examined climate change's potential effect on the global economy said Wednesday that data errors led them to slightly overstate an expected drop in income over the next 25 years.The researchers at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, writing in the journal Nature in 2024, had forecast a 19% drop in global income by 2050. Their revised analysis puts the figure at 17%.The authors also said in their original work that there was a 99% chance that, by midcentury, it would cost more to fix damage from climate change than it would cost to build resilience. Their new analysis, not yet peer-reviewed, lowered that figure to 91%.The Associated Press reported on the original study. Nature posted a retraction of it Wednesday.The researchers cited data inaccuracies in the first paper, particularly with underlying economic data for Uzbekistan between 1995 and 1999 that had a large influence on the results, and that their analysis had underestimated statistical uncertainty.Max Kotz, one of the study’s authors, told the AP that the heart of the study is unchanged: Climate change will be enormously damaging to the world economy if unchecked, and that the impact will hit hardest in the lowest-income areas that contribute the fewest emissions driving the planet's warming. Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia Business School who wasn't involved with the research, said the thrust of the Potsdam Institute's work remains the same “no matter which part of the range the true figure will be.”“Climate change already hits home, quite literally. Home insurance premiums across the U.S. have already seen, in part, a doubling over the past decade alone,” Wagner said. “Rapidly accumulating climate risks will only make the numbers go up even more.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Climate Change Is Killing the Myth of Los Angeles

I once lived in an apartment in Los Angeles that flooded every time it rained. Not just a polite drip, either. The ceiling sagged and dripped into long wet ribbons, and the wall beside my desk would bleed water like I was playing out Barton Fink in color. I wonder how that space looks now, as Southern California comes out of a long rain event where the hills above Altadena saw nearly nine inches at the site of January’s Eaton fire, between November 14 and November 21. People love to talk about tanned and toned Dallas Raines, the veteran KABC meteorologist who can summon high drama from a passing low-pressure system. Or the obligatory SUV hydroplaning down the 5 Freeway. In L.A., weather banter is its own civic dialect. We rarely admit how fragile the physical city really is, and how the very places that frame our daily lives—the courtyard where you catch the first blue of morning, the balcony where you watch the hills smolder at golden hour—can start to fail the moment the skies decide to turn. Everything here is built for one type of weather. And most of the time it works. But when it doesn’t, it really doesn’t work. L.A. has spent over a century advertising its perfect Mediterranean climate. Now increasingly frequent severe weather events are triggering citywide soul-searching about who deserves protection, what neighborhoods get resources, which elected officials are to blame, and whether the promise of this place still holds. Some parts of L.A. County picked up close to a foot of rain in 10 days in February 2023, leaving more than 80,000 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power customers without power, while unhoused residents faced flooded encampments, freezing nights, and packed shelters. Almost exactly a year later, emergency crews pulled a pregnant, unhoused woman from a storm drain above a raging river. The January 2025 fires in the Palisades and Altadena further exposed the gap between the city we imagine and the one we actually live in. What happens when a city built on the mythology of sublime weather has to finally face how to live with a climate that refuses to stay in line?The Los Angeles myth goes back more than a century: Between the 1880s and the 1920s, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce mailed millions of pamphlets eastward, selling Midwestern families on a kingdom of eternal spring. Sunkist built a national brand on winter oranges ripening while Chicago froze. Railroads sponsored booster fiction and postcards promising a life where weather was not an obstacle but an asset. In the dead of winter, “[you could] have a small, five-acre citrus farm and do really well and then hop on the streetcar and go to the beach for the day,” said professor Char Miller, a historian and environmental analysis scholar at Pomona College.Miller has spent decades tracing how this mythology ossified. While the pitch obscured who paid the price—Indigenous communities pushed off their land, Chinese and Japanese residents marginalized or excluded—the promise endured in part because the landscape helped carry it. But for all the valleys, deserts, and coastlines, there were also floods, fires, earthquakes, and landslides: hazards only mentioned in the fine print. There’s an old line Miller heard during his early days on the West Coast in the 1970s: “California is 90 percent paradise, 10 percent apocalypse.” It was something people once said with a kind of wry affection, the same sensibility baked into disaster films that love to see Los Angeles perpetually destroyed. It was the myth of a place that could always be rebuilt, where catastrophe was fleeting and bounty would always return. But that ratio, Miller says, is shifting, leaning more toward calamity. It was nearly midnight in New York when my phone lit up. A friend in Los Angeles was calling to ask if I wanted him to move anything out of my apartment, which had just fallen under an evacuation order while I was back East. Earlier that afternoon, on January 8, West Hollywood had been in the mid-70s—bone-dry, humidity in the 20s. The kind of day that feels ominous if you’ve lived here long enough to know what those numbers mean. By nightfall, another fire was creeping toward Runyon Canyon, the hiking trail so quintessentially L.A. it sometimes has a valet. In the weeks that followed the January fires, the political blame game was relentless. Some went after Mayor Bass, others after Governor Newsom. But the fury felt like a way to avoid the harder truth of a city playing dumb about its own new climate reality.Even while the January fires were still burning, city and state leaders promised to rebuild immediately, suspending regulations that might have slowed development in the very zones that were incinerated. “What that did was to take off the table any kind of transformation that might have slowed down the very things that that fire consumed, which is rapid growth up into fire zones,” Miller said. A recent CalMatters analysis found that nearly four million people in Southern California are living in such hazardous zones.Climate scientist Daniel Swain told me that despite all the finger-pointing after the January fires, the forecast wasn’t the problem. Meteorologists had issued “crystal clear warnings” days ahead of time. The real issue, he suggested, is that Los Angeles still treats climate disasters as if they can be willed away, as if better heroics in the moment could out-muscle physics. “We can’t expect to have a firefighting force that can magically overcome hurricane-force winds amid record dry conditions producing a blizzard of embers in the suburbs,” Swain said. “You just can’t fight that in the moment.”The deeper problem is structural. Southern California is one of the most fire-prone landscapes in the country, and millions now live in or immediately downwind of terrain primed to burn. Many neighborhoods haven’t seen major fire in decades, which feeds the illusion of safety. But growth has pushed suburbs further into the wildland-urban interface just as warming has lengthened fire season, increasing the chances that a Santa Ana wind event arrives when vegetation is crisp and unrecoverably dry. Most years won’t align as catastrophically as January did, Swain noted, but when they do the math is unforgiving.Work has to happen long before the flames arrive. Swain pointed to neighborhoods where community groups had already tackled vegetation management, replaced vulnerable vents, or cleared brush from wooden fences. Those blocks didn’t just fare slightly better, but some avoided becoming ignition points entirely. Fire resilience, he emphasized, is cumulative; every house that doesn’t burn is one less launching pad for embers to race downwind.The fixes aren’t always grand or expensive. Sometimes it’s a few hundred dollars for finer mesh vents that stop embers from blowing into attics. Sometimes it’s ripping out head-high brush along a property line. Sometimes it’s insisting that new construction in fire zones meet tougher standards or retrofitting homes that were built for a climate that no longer exists.Swain sees the January fires as a preview of what strong Santa Ana events will look like going forward. Historically, many of the strongest Santa Ana events came after at least some winter rain. Now that rain is arriving later, meaning more wind events strike when the hills are still crisped from autumn, as was the case in January. But the problem in Los Angeles isn’t just meteorological: It is political, infrastructural, and deeply cultural. Miller likes to point to other parts of the country that faced similar crossroads and chose differently. After catastrophic floods in 1998, San Antonio bought out homeowners in riparian zones rather than sending them back into danger. Houston did something similar after Hurricane Harvey. These weren’t mass seizures or punitive acts; they were buyouts at market rate, voluntary and forward-looking. “What if,” Miller wondered, “you went to people who were burned out in Altadena and the Palisades and said, ‘We’re going to pay you not to rebuild’?” It’s a planner’s maxim—build up, not out—but in Southern California, the political will rarely matches the topographic reality.And yet, amid the devastation, there were signs of another kind of civic instinct. In Altadena, neighbors organized mutual aid networks at local businesses like Octavia’s Bookshelf and Bike Oven, and community leaders helped residents navigate insurance, microloans, and temporary housing. New nonprofits sprang up to support people psychologically and financially. Miller is skeptical of rebuilding policy, but he’s quick to note the human creativity that emerged in the fire’s wake—a kind of grassroots adaptation that government hasn’t yet matched.In May, Miller remembers stepping off a plane at LAX behind someone wearing a leather jacket with two mottos curved across the back: “Never forget” on top, “Rebuild Altadena” on the bottom. “I think the bottom circle erases the top,” Miller said. “If you rebuild, you have already forgotten because you are not paying attention to what happened and why it happened.”

I once lived in an apartment in Los Angeles that flooded every time it rained. Not just a polite drip, either. The ceiling sagged and dripped into long wet ribbons, and the wall beside my desk would bleed water like I was playing out Barton Fink in color. I wonder how that space looks now, as Southern California comes out of a long rain event where the hills above Altadena saw nearly nine inches at the site of January’s Eaton fire, between November 14 and November 21. People love to talk about tanned and toned Dallas Raines, the veteran KABC meteorologist who can summon high drama from a passing low-pressure system. Or the obligatory SUV hydroplaning down the 5 Freeway. In L.A., weather banter is its own civic dialect. We rarely admit how fragile the physical city really is, and how the very places that frame our daily lives—the courtyard where you catch the first blue of morning, the balcony where you watch the hills smolder at golden hour—can start to fail the moment the skies decide to turn. Everything here is built for one type of weather. And most of the time it works. But when it doesn’t, it really doesn’t work. L.A. has spent over a century advertising its perfect Mediterranean climate. Now increasingly frequent severe weather events are triggering citywide soul-searching about who deserves protection, what neighborhoods get resources, which elected officials are to blame, and whether the promise of this place still holds. Some parts of L.A. County picked up close to a foot of rain in 10 days in February 2023, leaving more than 80,000 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power customers without power, while unhoused residents faced flooded encampments, freezing nights, and packed shelters. Almost exactly a year later, emergency crews pulled a pregnant, unhoused woman from a storm drain above a raging river. The January 2025 fires in the Palisades and Altadena further exposed the gap between the city we imagine and the one we actually live in. What happens when a city built on the mythology of sublime weather has to finally face how to live with a climate that refuses to stay in line?The Los Angeles myth goes back more than a century: Between the 1880s and the 1920s, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce mailed millions of pamphlets eastward, selling Midwestern families on a kingdom of eternal spring. Sunkist built a national brand on winter oranges ripening while Chicago froze. Railroads sponsored booster fiction and postcards promising a life where weather was not an obstacle but an asset. In the dead of winter, “[you could] have a small, five-acre citrus farm and do really well and then hop on the streetcar and go to the beach for the day,” said professor Char Miller, a historian and environmental analysis scholar at Pomona College.Miller has spent decades tracing how this mythology ossified. While the pitch obscured who paid the price—Indigenous communities pushed off their land, Chinese and Japanese residents marginalized or excluded—the promise endured in part because the landscape helped carry it. But for all the valleys, deserts, and coastlines, there were also floods, fires, earthquakes, and landslides: hazards only mentioned in the fine print. There’s an old line Miller heard during his early days on the West Coast in the 1970s: “California is 90 percent paradise, 10 percent apocalypse.” It was something people once said with a kind of wry affection, the same sensibility baked into disaster films that love to see Los Angeles perpetually destroyed. It was the myth of a place that could always be rebuilt, where catastrophe was fleeting and bounty would always return. But that ratio, Miller says, is shifting, leaning more toward calamity. It was nearly midnight in New York when my phone lit up. A friend in Los Angeles was calling to ask if I wanted him to move anything out of my apartment, which had just fallen under an evacuation order while I was back East. Earlier that afternoon, on January 8, West Hollywood had been in the mid-70s—bone-dry, humidity in the 20s. The kind of day that feels ominous if you’ve lived here long enough to know what those numbers mean. By nightfall, another fire was creeping toward Runyon Canyon, the hiking trail so quintessentially L.A. it sometimes has a valet. In the weeks that followed the January fires, the political blame game was relentless. Some went after Mayor Bass, others after Governor Newsom. But the fury felt like a way to avoid the harder truth of a city playing dumb about its own new climate reality.Even while the January fires were still burning, city and state leaders promised to rebuild immediately, suspending regulations that might have slowed development in the very zones that were incinerated. “What that did was to take off the table any kind of transformation that might have slowed down the very things that that fire consumed, which is rapid growth up into fire zones,” Miller said. A recent CalMatters analysis found that nearly four million people in Southern California are living in such hazardous zones.Climate scientist Daniel Swain told me that despite all the finger-pointing after the January fires, the forecast wasn’t the problem. Meteorologists had issued “crystal clear warnings” days ahead of time. The real issue, he suggested, is that Los Angeles still treats climate disasters as if they can be willed away, as if better heroics in the moment could out-muscle physics. “We can’t expect to have a firefighting force that can magically overcome hurricane-force winds amid record dry conditions producing a blizzard of embers in the suburbs,” Swain said. “You just can’t fight that in the moment.”The deeper problem is structural. Southern California is one of the most fire-prone landscapes in the country, and millions now live in or immediately downwind of terrain primed to burn. Many neighborhoods haven’t seen major fire in decades, which feeds the illusion of safety. But growth has pushed suburbs further into the wildland-urban interface just as warming has lengthened fire season, increasing the chances that a Santa Ana wind event arrives when vegetation is crisp and unrecoverably dry. Most years won’t align as catastrophically as January did, Swain noted, but when they do the math is unforgiving.Work has to happen long before the flames arrive. Swain pointed to neighborhoods where community groups had already tackled vegetation management, replaced vulnerable vents, or cleared brush from wooden fences. Those blocks didn’t just fare slightly better, but some avoided becoming ignition points entirely. Fire resilience, he emphasized, is cumulative; every house that doesn’t burn is one less launching pad for embers to race downwind.The fixes aren’t always grand or expensive. Sometimes it’s a few hundred dollars for finer mesh vents that stop embers from blowing into attics. Sometimes it’s ripping out head-high brush along a property line. Sometimes it’s insisting that new construction in fire zones meet tougher standards or retrofitting homes that were built for a climate that no longer exists.Swain sees the January fires as a preview of what strong Santa Ana events will look like going forward. Historically, many of the strongest Santa Ana events came after at least some winter rain. Now that rain is arriving later, meaning more wind events strike when the hills are still crisped from autumn, as was the case in January. But the problem in Los Angeles isn’t just meteorological: It is political, infrastructural, and deeply cultural. Miller likes to point to other parts of the country that faced similar crossroads and chose differently. After catastrophic floods in 1998, San Antonio bought out homeowners in riparian zones rather than sending them back into danger. Houston did something similar after Hurricane Harvey. These weren’t mass seizures or punitive acts; they were buyouts at market rate, voluntary and forward-looking. “What if,” Miller wondered, “you went to people who were burned out in Altadena and the Palisades and said, ‘We’re going to pay you not to rebuild’?” It’s a planner’s maxim—build up, not out—but in Southern California, the political will rarely matches the topographic reality.And yet, amid the devastation, there were signs of another kind of civic instinct. In Altadena, neighbors organized mutual aid networks at local businesses like Octavia’s Bookshelf and Bike Oven, and community leaders helped residents navigate insurance, microloans, and temporary housing. New nonprofits sprang up to support people psychologically and financially. Miller is skeptical of rebuilding policy, but he’s quick to note the human creativity that emerged in the fire’s wake—a kind of grassroots adaptation that government hasn’t yet matched.In May, Miller remembers stepping off a plane at LAX behind someone wearing a leather jacket with two mottos curved across the back: “Never forget” on top, “Rebuild Altadena” on the bottom. “I think the bottom circle erases the top,” Miller said. “If you rebuild, you have already forgotten because you are not paying attention to what happened and why it happened.”

Deadly Asian Floods Are No Fluke. They’re a Climate Warning, Scientists Say

Southeast Asia has been hit by unusually severe floods this year, with late storms killing more than 1,200 people and leaving hundreds missing across Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Southeast Asia is being pummeled by unusually severe floods this year, as late-arriving storms and relentless rains wreak havoc that has caught many places off guard.Malaysia is still reeling from one its worst floods, which killed three and displaced thousands. Meanwhile, Vietnam and the Philippines have faced a year of punishing storms and floods that have left hundreds dead.What feels unprecedented is exactly what climate scientists expect: A new normal of punishing storms, floods and devastation.“Southeast Asia should brace for a likely continuation and potential worsening of extreme weather in 2026 and for many years immediately following that," said Jemilah Mahmood, who leads the think tank Sunway Centre for Planetary Health in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Asia is facing the full force of the climate crisis Climate patterns last year helped set the stage for 2025's extreme weather.Atmospheric levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the most on record in 2024. That “turbocharged” the climate, the United Nation's World Meteorological Organization says, resulting in more extreme weather.Asia is bearing the brunt of such changes, warming nearly twice as fast as the global average. Scientists agree that the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events are increasing.Warmer ocean temperatures provide more energy for storms, making them stronger and wetter, while rising sea levels amplify storm surges, said Benjamin Horton, a professor of earth science at the City University of Hong Kong. Storms are arriving later in the year, one after another as climate change affects air and ocean currents, including systems like El Nino, which keeps ocean waters warmer for longer and extends the typhoon season. With more moisture in the air and changes in wind patterns, storms can form quickly.“While the total number of storms may not dramatically increase, their severity and unpredictability will," Horton said. Governments were unprepared The unpredictability, intensity, and frequency of recent extreme weather events are overwhelming Southeast Asian governments, said Aslam Perwaiz of the Bangkok-based intergovernmental Asian Disaster Preparedness Center. He attributes that to a tendency to focus on responding to disasters rather than preparing for them.“Future disasters will give us even less lead time to prepare," Perwaiz warned.In Sri Lanka’s hardest-hit provinces, little has changed since 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, said Sarala Emmanuel, a human-rights researcher in Batticaloa. It killed 230,000 people. "When a disaster like this happens, the poor and marginalized communities are the worst affected,” Emmanuel said. That includes poor tea plantation workers living in areas prone to landslides. Unregulated development that damages local ecosystems has worsened flood damage, said Sandun Thudugala of the Colombo-based non-profit Law and Society Trust. Sri Lanka needs to rethink how it builds and plans, he said, taking into account a future where extreme weather is the norm.Videos of logs swept downstream in Indonesia suggested deforestation may have made the floods worse. Since 2000, the flood-inundated Indonesian provinces of Aceh, North Sumatra and West Sumatra have lost 19,600 square kilometers (7,569 square miles) of forest, an area larger than the state of New Jersey, according to Global Forest Watch.Officials rejected claims of illegal logging, saying the timber looked old and probably came from landholders. Billions are lost, while climate finance is limited Countries are losing billions of dollars a year because of climate change.Vietnam estimates that it lost over $3 billion in the first 11 months of this year because of floods, landslides and storms. Thailand's government data is fragmented, but its agriculture ministry estimates about $47 million in agricultural losses since August. The Kasikorn Research Center estimates the November floods in southern Thailand alone caused about $781 million in losses, potentially shaving off 0.1% of GDP.Indonesia doesn't have data for losses for this year but its annual average losses from natural disasters are $1.37 billion, its finance ministry says. Costs from disasters are an added burden for Sri Lanka, which contributes a tiny fraction of global carbon emissions but is at the frontline of climate impacts, while it spends most of its wealth to repay foreign loans, said Thudugala. "There is also an urgent need for vulnerable countries like ours to get compensated for loss and damages we suffer because of global warming,” Thudugala said.“My request ... is support to recover some of the losses we have suffered,” said Rohan Wickramarachchi, owner of a commercial building in the central Sri Lankan town of Peradeniya that was flooded to its second floor. He and dozens of other families he knows must now start over. Responding to increasingly desperate calls for help, at the COP30 global climate conference last month in Brazil, countries pledged to triple funding for climate adaptation and make $1.3 trillion in annual climate financing available by 2035. That’s still woefully short of what developing nations requested, and it's unclear if those funds will actually materialize.Southeast Asia is at a crossroads for climate action, said Thomas Houlie of the science and policy institute, Climate Analytics. The region is expanding use of renewable energy but still reliant on fossil fuels.“What we’re seeing in the region is dramatic and it’s unfortunately a stark reminder of the consequences of the climate crisis," Houlie said.Delgado reported from Bangkok. Associated Press writers Edna Tarigan in Jakarta, Indonesia, Jintamas Saksornchai in Bangkok, Thailand, Sibi Arasu in Bengaluru, India, Eranga Jayawardena in Kandy, Sri Lanka, and Eileen Ng in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, contributed to this report.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Costa Rica Ranks Third in 2025 Global Retirement Index

Costa Rica has earned third place in International Living’s 34th Annual Global Retirement Index for 2025, a solid performance that keeps the country among the world’s top retirement spots despite a slight drop from recent years. The index, which evaluates countries based on factors like cost of living, healthcare, climate, and residency options, highlights Costa […] The post Costa Rica Ranks Third in 2025 Global Retirement Index appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica has earned third place in International Living’s 34th Annual Global Retirement Index for 2025, a solid performance that keeps the country among the world’s top retirement spots despite a slight drop from recent years. The index, which evaluates countries based on factors like cost of living, healthcare, climate, and residency options, highlights Costa Rica’s appeal to retirees seeking a balanced life in Central America. This year’s ranking places Costa Rica behind Panama in second and Greece in first, according to the latest data from the index released earlier this year. Retirees praise the country’s focus on nature, safety, and community bonds, often summed up in the local phrase “pura vida.” A couple living in the coastal town of Samara, for example, reports monthly expenses around $1,593, covering food, utilities, and other basics while owning their home. Healthcare stands out as a key strength, with the public Caja system costing about $80 per month and private options like a mammogram available for $50. The Pensionado residency program remains a draw, requiring a $1,000 monthly pension to qualify. Climates vary from the dry northwest in Guanacaste to humid coastal areas, giving retirees choices that fit their preferences. These elements helped Costa Rica score high in categories like climate, where it topped the list, and environmental protection, with 25% of its land set aside as protected areas. Compared to past years, Costa Rica’s position shows consistency with some fluctuations. In 2024, the country claimed first place, praised for its affordable lifestyle and strong healthcare system. It also held the top spot in 2021, when the index noted its neighborly atmosphere and stable democracy. Back in 2019, Costa Rica ranked second, just behind Mexico, due to similar strengths in cost and quality of life. In 2018, it again led the rankings, drawing attention for its no-hassle residency and year-round mild weather. The dip to third in 2025 reflects growing competition from European nations like Greece, which jumped from seventh last year thanks to its low costs, Mediterranean climate, and community feel. Panama, our regional rival, edged ahead with its Pensionado Visa discounts—such as 25% off utility bills—and diverse terrains from highlands to beaches. Still, Costa Rica outperforms many peers, outranking Portugal in fourth, Mexico in fifth, and others like Italy and France further down the list. Experts here see this as a positive sign. “Costa Rica continues to attract retirees who value stability and natural surroundings,” said a real estate advisor in Guanacaste, where expat communities thrive. The country’s emphasis on safety ranks it 39th in the 2023 Global Peace Index, ahead of many Latin American neighbors, though retirees note the need for common-sense precautions. Economic factors play a role too. Property taxes stay low, and living costs allow a comfortable existence on modest incomes. A retiree in the Central Valley might spend $400 on groceries and $275 on electricity monthly, far below similar expenses in the U.S. or Europe. Healthcare access combines public universality with private efficiency, making it a reliable choice for older adults. While the ranking slipped from recent highs, it underscores Costa Rica’s continuing strengths. Retirees from North America and Europe keep arriving, drawn to places like the Nicoya Peninsula, one of the world’s Blue Zones for longevity. The index serves as a guide for those planning moves, and Costa Rica’s spot near the top suggests it will remain a favorite. As global trends shift toward affordable, health-focused destinations, Costa Rica adapts by improving infrastructure and residency processes. For locals, the influx supports tourism and real estate, though it also raises questions about balancing growth with preservation. In a nutshell, the 2025 index reconfirms Costa Rica’s role as a leading retirement destination, even as new contenders such as our neighbor Panama, emerge. The post Costa Rica Ranks Third in 2025 Global Retirement Index appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

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.