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.

Experts slam "lost opportunity" as disaster film "Twisters" fails to acknowledge climate change

News Feed
Monday, July 22, 2024

Hollywood's latest weather disaster blockbuster, "Twisters" (a standalone sequel to the 1996 film "Twister"), features plenty of extreme weather — yet it has a somewhat incongruous scorn for scientists who study the weather. The discordant note is subtle, but at the same time hard to entirely miss. Without spoiling too much of the plot, "Twisters" depicts most of its PhDs and other professional scientists as cynical, selfish, cold and intellectually narrow. By contrast, the movie's fictional YouTubers and amateur storm chasers are overwhelmingly shown as idealistic, compassionate, colorful and far more knowledgeable about science that those stuffy official scientists. "It’s an unfortunate lost opportunity that speaks to the pusillanimous nature of Hollywood these days." Despite this attitude of smug superiority toward the scientific profession, "Twisters" doesn't once mention climate change, which may seem bizarre for a weather disaster film in 2024. But that wasn't an accident. As director Lee Isaac Chung told CNN, "I wanted to make sure that we are never creating a feeling that we’re preaching a message, because that’s certainly not what I think cinema should be about. I think it should be a reflection of the world.”  Given that global heating is one of the greatest existential threats to humanity — a threat responsible for increasingly frequent erratic and intense weather, including cyclones and tornadoes — the question is whether any movie about weather disasters can be an accurate "reflection of the world" if it neglects to acknowledge this major piece of humanity's scientific knowledge. Many real-world climate scientists argue it cannot. "I do think it’s an unfortunate lost opportunity that speaks to the pusillanimous nature of Hollywood these days," Dr. Michael E. Mann, a climatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said. "The science suggests they were are seeing larger outbreaks and more destructive tornadoes due to human-caused climate change." Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who has published more than 600 articles on climatology, said that if "Twisters" shies away from directly mentioning climate change then it is "flawed." After all, the movie's premise is about a freakish series of tornadoes, and Trenberth is confident that climate change is producing exactly those types of storms. "Climate change adds heat to the system and especially heats up the ocean," Trenberth said. "A result is about 10 to 20% increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. Both effects (temperature and moisture) increases add substantially to the instability of the atmosphere with a result of increased convection. This occurs on all scales and adds especially to fuel thunderstorms - and hurricanes." Supercell thunderstorms harbor tornadoes, Trenberth added, and are especially prone to creating them when they have enough wind shear (sudden shifts in wind direction or speed) that it can be converted into rotation. "This factor is not clearly linked to climate change but the instability is," Trenberth added. Dr. Twila Moon, the deputy lead scientist and science communication liaison at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), referred Salon to a pair of studies in the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Weather and Climate Extremes. Both articles found that, as humans increase Earth's temperature by emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, there is the potential for tornadoes to occur more often and with increased intensity. "Some recent research suggest potential for increased intensity or frequency of tornadoes, with seasonal and time of day variations," Moon said. "Of course, the geography being considered is important." Dr. Michael Wehner, a senior scientist in the Computational Research Division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, was a little more skeptical than his peers. Wehner said that the omission of climate change from "Twisters" is glaring because global heating may be linked to the unusual proliferation of tornadoes in recent years, but the science isn't entirely settled. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "I’d love to see more entertainment incorporating good climate actions into the background." "There is much about the influence of climate change on tornadoes that is not well understood," Wehner said. "There has been an eastward shift in Tornado Alley? Is that due to climate change? Not clear to me." Wehner also observed that there are more days than ever with clusters of tornadoes. "This would appear to me to be consistent with warming, but the evidence is far from complete," Wehner said. "Also, I would expect that the most intense storms would become more intense. While there is a lot of evidence that this is happening for other storm types, the evidence again is far from complete for tornadoes." Wehner is not alone among his colleagues in questioning the climate change connection to tornadoes. "I think that it is premature to argue for any link between climate change and changes in tornado activity,"  Dr. Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC, said. "Yes, more water vapor in the air can foster stronger convection, but a tornado is a very local feature and requires a very specific set of meteorological conditions, such as the right wind shear." Some might argue that a movie like "Twisters" — which includes intentionally over-the-top sci-fi absurdities like scientists dissolving a tornado — does not need to include climate change to do its job. Chung implies as much by saying that popcorn flicks like "Twisters" bear no responsibility to do so as long as they are entertaining. Yet there is considerable evidence that movies influence viewers' perceptions of important real-world issues. There is only one Hollywood blockbuster to ever explicitly focus on global warming, 2004's "The Day After Tomorrow," and because it was a box office hit, it had a quantifiable and provable influence on public opinions.  In his 2007 book "Hollywood Science," Emory University Physics Professor Sidney Perkowitz said that a survey by environmental science and policy expert Anthony Leiserowitz found the film "had a 'significant impact' on climate change risk perceptions, conceptual models, behavioral intentions, policy priorities." Viewed by roughly 21 million Americans in theaters, "the film led moviegoers to have higher levels of concern and worry about global warming [and] encouraged watchers to engage in personal, political, and social action to address climate change and to elevate global warming as a national priority … The movie even appears to have influenced voter preferences." This potential for cultural influence explains why Hollywood now has the so-called Climate Reality Check, released earlier this year by Colby College’s Matthew Schneider-Mayerson in partnership with the group Good Energy. It holds that movies set in the present or near future, on Earth and in our shared universe, have a public responsibility to mention climate change. If a film both mentions global heating and has a character who acknowledges it, it passes the Climate Reality Check, a distinction earned in 2023 by films like "Barbie," "Nyad" and "Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One." For her part, Climate Reality Check's founder Anna Jane Joyner praised the film despite it not mentioning climate change directly. Joyner argues that its characters still manage to indirectly acknowledge the climate crisis. "I'm grateful that Twisters acknowledges the climate crisis through the characters Javi [Anthony Ramos] and Cathy [Maura Tierney], who both comment that what they’re seeing is unprecedented," Joyner said. She believes "Twisters" can in its own way spread awareness in a positive way. "Our research with the USC Norman Lear Center Media Impact Project found that most viewers believe they care more about climate change than characters in TV and film," Joyner said. "Of the 250 most popular films of the past decade, movies that acknowledge the climate crisis made 10% more at the box office. People want these stories." Moon added that Hollywood has "both good and bad examples" of scientific accuracy. "I prefer to shine a light on the areas of progress and long-term investments in getting solid science — including climate science — into entertainment," Moon said. "For example, the upcoming Hollywood Climate Summit or the established Science & Entertainment Exchange. A brief Google search provides many more efforts, too." At the same time, Moon feels Hollywood can do better, saying that "I’d love to see more entertainment incorporating good climate actions into the background. So the story doesn’t at all focus on climate, but the visuals and context provide cultural examples throughout of how we can live, work and play in climate-friendly and climate-aware ways. Social and cultural change is key to addressing the climate crisis." These cultural exchanges can even prove prophetic about the climate crisis. "The Day After Tomorrow," for example, shows climate change-caused tornadoes ripping apart Los Angeles, which seemed ludicrous in 2004 but became a terrifying reality in 2023 — as well as, of course, the premise of "Twisters" in 2024. Equally prophetic in its own way, though, was the marketing meeting in which "The Day After Tomorrow"'s creative team learned a shocking fact about how the movie was to be promoted. Co-writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff recalled to Salon last month that when the creators "went in for the very first marketing meeting after we had sold the script," someone on the Fox marketing team said, "Just to be clear, as per Fox's policy, we will not be using the words 'global warming' when we market this film.' I almost spit my water out!" Global warming has certainly changed in the two decades since that conversation, but apparently Hollywood's squeamishness about fully acknowledging that reality has not. Read more about climate change

The director of "Twisters" said he nixed mention of the global heating crisis to avoid seeming "preachy"

Hollywood's latest weather disaster blockbuster, "Twisters" (a standalone sequel to the 1996 film "Twister"), features plenty of extreme weather — yet it has a somewhat incongruous scorn for scientists who study the weather.

The discordant note is subtle, but at the same time hard to entirely miss. Without spoiling too much of the plot, "Twisters" depicts most of its PhDs and other professional scientists as cynical, selfish, cold and intellectually narrow. By contrast, the movie's fictional YouTubers and amateur storm chasers are overwhelmingly shown as idealistic, compassionate, colorful and far more knowledgeable about science that those stuffy official scientists.

"It’s an unfortunate lost opportunity that speaks to the pusillanimous nature of Hollywood these days."

Despite this attitude of smug superiority toward the scientific profession, "Twisters" doesn't once mention climate change, which may seem bizarre for a weather disaster film in 2024. But that wasn't an accident. As director Lee Isaac Chung told CNN, "I wanted to make sure that we are never creating a feeling that we’re preaching a message, because that’s certainly not what I think cinema should be about. I think it should be a reflection of the world.” 

Given that global heating is one of the greatest existential threats to humanity — a threat responsible for increasingly frequent erratic and intense weather, including cyclones and tornadoes — the question is whether any movie about weather disasters can be an accurate "reflection of the world" if it neglects to acknowledge this major piece of humanity's scientific knowledge. Many real-world climate scientists argue it cannot.

"I do think it’s an unfortunate lost opportunity that speaks to the pusillanimous nature of Hollywood these days," Dr. Michael E. Mann, a climatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said. "The science suggests they were are seeing larger outbreaks and more destructive tornadoes due to human-caused climate change."

Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who has published more than 600 articles on climatology, said that if "Twisters" shies away from directly mentioning climate change then it is "flawed." After all, the movie's premise is about a freakish series of tornadoes, and Trenberth is confident that climate change is producing exactly those types of storms.

"Climate change adds heat to the system and especially heats up the ocean," Trenberth said. "A result is about 10 to 20% increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. Both effects (temperature and moisture) increases add substantially to the instability of the atmosphere with a result of increased convection. This occurs on all scales and adds especially to fuel thunderstorms - and hurricanes."

Supercell thunderstorms harbor tornadoes, Trenberth added, and are especially prone to creating them when they have enough wind shear (sudden shifts in wind direction or speed) that it can be converted into rotation. "This factor is not clearly linked to climate change but the instability is," Trenberth added.

Dr. Twila Moon, the deputy lead scientist and science communication liaison at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), referred Salon to a pair of studies in the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Weather and Climate Extremes. Both articles found that, as humans increase Earth's temperature by emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, there is the potential for tornadoes to occur more often and with increased intensity.

"Some recent research suggest potential for increased intensity or frequency of tornadoes, with seasonal and time of day variations," Moon said. "Of course, the geography being considered is important."

Dr. Michael Wehner, a senior scientist in the Computational Research Division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, was a little more skeptical than his peers. Wehner said that the omission of climate change from "Twisters" is glaring because global heating may be linked to the unusual proliferation of tornadoes in recent years, but the science isn't entirely settled.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


"I’d love to see more entertainment incorporating good climate actions into the background."

"There is much about the influence of climate change on tornadoes that is not well understood," Wehner said. "There has been an eastward shift in Tornado Alley? Is that due to climate change? Not clear to me."

Wehner also observed that there are more days than ever with clusters of tornadoes.

"This would appear to me to be consistent with warming, but the evidence is far from complete," Wehner said. "Also, I would expect that the most intense storms would become more intense. While there is a lot of evidence that this is happening for other storm types, the evidence again is far from complete for tornadoes."

Wehner is not alone among his colleagues in questioning the climate change connection to tornadoes.

"I think that it is premature to argue for any link between climate change and changes in tornado activity,"  Dr. Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC, said. "Yes, more water vapor in the air can foster stronger convection, but a tornado is a very local feature and requires a very specific set of meteorological conditions, such as the right wind shear."

Some might argue that a movie like "Twisters" — which includes intentionally over-the-top sci-fi absurdities like scientists dissolving a tornado — does not need to include climate change to do its job. Chung implies as much by saying that popcorn flicks like "Twisters" bear no responsibility to do so as long as they are entertaining. Yet there is considerable evidence that movies influence viewers' perceptions of important real-world issues. There is only one Hollywood blockbuster to ever explicitly focus on global warming, 2004's "The Day After Tomorrow," and because it was a box office hit, it had a quantifiable and provable influence on public opinions. 

In his 2007 book "Hollywood Science," Emory University Physics Professor Sidney Perkowitz said that a survey by environmental science and policy expert Anthony Leiserowitz found the film "had a 'significant impact' on climate change risk perceptions, conceptual models, behavioral intentions, policy priorities." Viewed by roughly 21 million Americans in theaters, "the film led moviegoers to have higher levels of concern and worry about global warming [and] encouraged watchers to engage in personal, political, and social action to address climate change and to elevate global warming as a national priority … The movie even appears to have influenced voter preferences."

This potential for cultural influence explains why Hollywood now has the so-called Climate Reality Check, released earlier this year by Colby College’s Matthew Schneider-Mayerson in partnership with the group Good Energy. It holds that movies set in the present or near future, on Earth and in our shared universe, have a public responsibility to mention climate change. If a film both mentions global heating and has a character who acknowledges it, it passes the Climate Reality Check, a distinction earned in 2023 by films like "Barbie," "Nyad" and "Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One."

For her part, Climate Reality Check's founder Anna Jane Joyner praised the film despite it not mentioning climate change directly. Joyner argues that its characters still manage to indirectly acknowledge the climate crisis.

"I'm grateful that Twisters acknowledges the climate crisis through the characters Javi [Anthony Ramos] and Cathy [Maura Tierney], who both comment that what they’re seeing is unprecedented," Joyner said. She believes "Twisters" can in its own way spread awareness in a positive way.

"Our research with the USC Norman Lear Center Media Impact Project found that most viewers believe they care more about climate change than characters in TV and film," Joyner said. "Of the 250 most popular films of the past decade, movies that acknowledge the climate crisis made 10% more at the box office. People want these stories."

Moon added that Hollywood has "both good and bad examples" of scientific accuracy.

"I prefer to shine a light on the areas of progress and long-term investments in getting solid science — including climate science — into entertainment," Moon said. "For example, the upcoming Hollywood Climate Summit or the established Science & Entertainment Exchange. A brief Google search provides many more efforts, too."

At the same time, Moon feels Hollywood can do better, saying that "I’d love to see more entertainment incorporating good climate actions into the background. So the story doesn’t at all focus on climate, but the visuals and context provide cultural examples throughout of how we can live, work and play in climate-friendly and climate-aware ways. Social and cultural change is key to addressing the climate crisis."

These cultural exchanges can even prove prophetic about the climate crisis. "The Day After Tomorrow," for example, shows climate change-caused tornadoes ripping apart Los Angeles, which seemed ludicrous in 2004 but became a terrifying reality in 2023 — as well as, of course, the premise of "Twisters" in 2024. Equally prophetic in its own way, though, was the marketing meeting in which "The Day After Tomorrow"'s creative team learned a shocking fact about how the movie was to be promoted. Co-writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff recalled to Salon last month that when the creators "went in for the very first marketing meeting after we had sold the script," someone on the Fox marketing team said, "Just to be clear, as per Fox's policy, we will not be using the words 'global warming' when we market this film.' I almost spit my water out!"

Global warming has certainly changed in the two decades since that conversation, but apparently Hollywood's squeamishness about fully acknowledging that reality has not.

Read more

about climate change

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Fire Disrupts UN Climate Talks Just as Negotiators Reach Critical Final Days

Fire has disrupted United Nations climate talks, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Fire disrupted United Nations climate talks in Brazil on Thursday, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements. Officials said no one was hurt.The fire was reported in an area of pavilions where sideline events are held during the annual talks, known this year as COP30. Organizers soon announced that the fire was under control, but fire officials ordered the entire site evacuated for safety checks and it wasn't clear when conference business would resume.Viliami Vainga Tone, with the Tonga delegation, had just come out of a high-level ministerial meeting when dozens of people came thundering past him shouting about the fire. He was among people pushed out of the venue by Brazilian and United Nations security forces.Tone called time the most precious resource at COP and said he was disappointed it's even shorter due to the fire.“We have to keep up our optimism. There is always tomorrow, if not the remainder of today. But at least we have a full day tomorrow,” Tone told The Associated Press.A few hours before the fire, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to compromise and “show willingness and flexibility to deliver results,” even if they fall short of the strongest measures some nations want.“We are down to the wire and the world is watching Belem,” Guterres said, asking negotiators to engage in good faith in the last two scheduled days of talks, which already missed a self-imposed deadline Wednesday for progress on a few key issues. The conference, with this year's edition known as COP30, frequently runs longer than its scheduled two weeks.“Communities on the front lines are watching, too — counting flooded homes, failed harvests, lost livelihoods — and asking, ‘how much more must we suffer?’” Guterres said. "They’ve heard enough excuses and demand results.” On contentious issues involving more detailed plans to phase out fossil fuels and financial aid to poorer countries, Guterres said he was “perfectly convinced” that compromise was possible and dismissed the idea that not adopting the strongest measures would be a failure.Guterres was more forceful in what he wanted rich countries to do for poor countries, especially those in need of tens of billions of dollars to adapt to the floods, droughts, storms and heat waves triggered by worsening climate change. He continued calls to triple adaptation finance from $40 billion a year to $120 billion a year.“No delegation will leave Belem with everything it wants, but every delegation has a duty to reach a balanced deal,” Guterres said.“Every country, especially the big emitters, must do more,” Guterres said.Delivering overall financial aid — with an agreed goal of $300 billion a year — is one of four interconnected issues that were initially excluded from the official agenda. The other three are: whether countries should be told to toughen their new climate plans; dealing with trade barriers over climate and improving reporting on transparency and climate progress.More than 80 countries have pushed for a detailed “road map” on how to transition away from fossil fuels, like coal, oil and natural gas, which are the chief cause of warming. That was a general but vague agreement two years ago at the COP in Dubai. Guterres kept referring to it as already being agreed to in Dubai, but did not commit to a detailed plan, which Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pushed for earlier in a speech.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.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Engineered microbes could tackle climate change – if we ensure it’s done safely

Engineering microbes to soak up more carbon, boost crop yields and restore former farmland is appealing. But synthetic biology fixes must be done thoughtfully

Yuji Sakai/GettyAs the climate crisis accelerates, there’s a desperate need to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, both by slashing emissions and by pulling carbon out of the air. Synthetic biology has emerged as a particularly promising approach. Despite the name, synthetic biology isn’t about creating new life from scratch. Rather, it uses engineering principles to build new biological components for existing microorganisms such as bacteria, microbes and fungi to make them better at specific tasks. By one recent estimate, synthetic biology could cut more carbon than emitted by all passenger cars ever made – up to 30 billion tonnes – through methods such as boosting crop yields, restoring agricultural land, cutting livestock methane emissions, reducing the need for fertiliser, producing biofuels and engineering microbes to store more carbon. According to some synthetic biologists, this could be a game-changer. But will it prove to be? Technological efforts to “solve” the climate problem often verge on the improbably utopian. There’s a risk in seeing synthetic biology as a silver bullet for environmental problems. A more realistic approach suggests synthetic biology isn’t a magic fix, but does have real potential worth exploring further. Engineering microorganisms is a controversial practice. To make the most of these technologies, researchers will have to ensure it’s done safely and ethically, as my research points out. What potential does synthetic biology have? Earth’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural processes soak up over half of all carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels. Synthetic biology could make these natural sinks even more effective. Some researchers are exploring ways to modify natural enzymes to rapidly convert carbon dioxide gas into carbon in rocks. Perhaps the best known example is the use of precision fermentation to cut methane emissions from livestock. Because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, these emissions account for roughly 12% of total warming potential from greenhouse emissions. Bioengineered yeasts could absorb up to 98% of these emissions. After being eaten by cattle or other ruminants these yeasts block production of methane before it can be belched out. Synthetic biology could even drastically reduce how much farmland the world needs by producing food more efficiently. Engineered soil microbes can boost crop yields at least by 10–20%, meaning more food from less land. Precision fermentation can be used to produce clean meat and clean milk with much lower emissions than traditional farming. Engineered microbes have the potential to boost crop yields considerably. Collab Media/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-ND If farms produce more on less land, excess farmland can be returned to nature. Wetlands, forests and native grasslands can store much more carbon than farmland, helping tackle climate change. Synthetic biology can be used to modify microbe and algae species to increase their natural ability to store carbon in wetlands and oceans. This approach is known as natural geoengineering. Engineered crops and soil microbes can also lock away much more carbon in the roots of crops or by increasing soil storage capacity. They can also reduce methane emissions from organic matter and tackle pollutants such as fertiliser runoff and heavy metals. Sounds great – what’s the problem? As researchers have pointed out, using this approach will require a rollout at massive scale. At present, much work has been done at smaller scale. These engineered organisms need to be able to go from Petri dishes to industrial bioreactors and then safely into the environment. To scale, these approaches have to be economically viable, well regulated and socially acceptable. That’s easier said than done. First, engineering organisms comes with the serious risk of unintended consequences. If these customised microbes release their stored carbon all at once during a drought or bushfire, it could worsen climate change. It would be very difficult to control these organisms if a problem emerges after their release, such as if an engineered microbe began outcompeting its rivals or if synthetic genes spread beyond the target species and do unintended damage to other species and ecosystems. It will be essential to tackle these issues head on with robust risk management and forward planning. Second, synthetic biology approaches will likely become products. To make these organisms cheaply and gain market share, biotech companies will have an incentive to focus on immediate profits. This could lead companies to downplay actual risks to protect their profit margins. Regulation will be essential here. Third, some worthwhile approaches may not appeal to companies seeking a return on investment. Instead, governments or public institutions may have to develop them to benefit plants, animals and natural habitats, given human existence rests on healthy ecosystems. Which way forward? These issues shouldn’t stop researchers from testing out these technologies. But these risks must be taken into account, as not all risks are equal. Unchecked climate change would be much worse, as it could lead to societal collapse, large-scale climate migration and mass species extinction. Large scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is now essential. In the face of catastrophic risks, it can be ethically justifiable to take the smaller risk of unintended consequences from these organisms. But it’s far less justifiable if these same risks are accepted to secure financial returns for private investors. As time passes and the climate crisis intensifies, these technologies will look more and more appealing. Synthetic biology won’t be the silver bullet many imagine it to be, and it’s unlikely it will be the gold mine many hope for. But the technology has undeniable promise. Used thoughtfully and ethically, it could help us make a healthier planet for all living species. Daniele Fulvi receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology, and his current project investigates the ethical dimensions of synthetic biology for climate mitigation. He also received a small grant from the Advanced Engineering Biology Future Science Platform at CSIRO. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or the Australian Research Council.

Exclusive-Europe Plans Service to Gauge Climate Change Role in Extreme Weather

By Alison Withers and Kate AbnettCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The EU is launching a service to measure the role climate change is playing in extreme...

By Alison Withers and Kate AbnettCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The EU is launching a service to measure the role climate change is playing in extreme weather events like heatwaves and extreme rain, and experts say this could help governments set climate policy, improve financial risk assessments and provide evidence for use in lawsuits.Scientists with the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service told Reuters the service can help governments in weighing the physical risks posed by worsening weather and setting policy in response. "It's the demand of understanding when an extreme event happens, how is this related to climate change?" said the new service's technical lead, Freja Vamborg.The European Commission did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.The service will perform attribution science, which involves running computer simulations of how weather systems might have behaved if people had never started pumping greenhouse gases into the air and then comparing those results with what is happening today.Funded for about 2.5 million euros over three years, Copernicus will publish results by the end of next year and offer two assessments a month - each within a week of an extreme weather event.For the first time, "there will be an attribution office operating constantly," said Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus Climate Change Service. "Climate policy is unfortunately again a very polarized topic," said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London who helped to pioneer the scientific approach but is not involved in the new EU service. She welcomed the service's plans to partner with national weather services of EU members along with the UK Met and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre."From that point of view, it also helps if the governments do it themselves and just see themselves really the evidence from their own weather services," Otto said. Some independent climate scientists and lawyers cheered the EU move. "We want to have the most information available," said senior attorney Erika Lennon at the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law."The more information we have about attribution science, the easier it will be for the most impacted to be able to successfully bring claims to courts."By calculating probabilities of climate change impacting weather patterns, the approach also helps insurance companies and others in the financial sector.In a way, "they're already using it" with in-house teams calculating probabilities for floods or storms, said environmental scientist Johan Rockstroem with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research."Financial institutions understand risk and risk has to be quantified, and this is one way of quantifying," Rockstroem said.In litigation, attribution science is also being used already in calculating how much a country's or company's emissions may have contributed to climate-fuelled disasters.The International Court of Justice said in July that attribution science is legally viable for linking emissions with climate extremes - but it has yet to fully be tested in court. A German court in May dismissed a Peruvian farmer's lawsuit against German utility RWE for emissions-driven warming causing Andean glaciers to thaw. The case had used attribution science in calculating the damage claim, but the court said the claim amount was too low to take the case forward.So "the court never got to discussing attribution science in detail and going into whether the climate models are good enough, and all of these complex and thorny questions," said Noah Walker-Crawford, a climate litigation researcher at the London School of Economics. (Reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen and Kate Abnett in Belem, Brazil; Writing by Katy Daigle; Editing by David Gregorio)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer is running for governor

Billionaire hedge fund founder, climate change warrior and major Democratic donor Tom Steyer is running for governor. Fossil fuel and migrant detention facility investments will likely draw attacks from his fellow Democrats.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer announced Wednesday that he is running for governor of California, arguing that he is not beholden to special interests and can take on corporations that are making life unaffordable in the state.“The richest people in America think that they earned everything themselves. Bulls—, man. That’s so ridiculous,” Steyer said in an online video announcing his campaign. “We have a broken government. It’s been bought by corporations and my question is: Who do you think is going to change that? Sacramento politicians are afraid to change up this system. I’m not. They’re going to hate this. Bring it on.” Protesters hold placards and banners during a rally against Whitehaven Coal in Sydney in 2014. Dozens of protesters and activists gathered downtown to protest against the controversial massive Maules Creek coal mine project in northern New South Wales. (Saeed Khan / AFP/Getty Images) Steyer, 68, founded Farallon Capital Management, one of the nation’s largest hedge funds, and left it in 2012 after 26 years. Since his departure, he has become a global environmental activist and a major donor to Democratic candidates and causes. But the hedge firm’s investments — notably a giant coal mine in Australia that cleared 3,700 acres of koala habitat and a company that runs migrant detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — will make him susceptible to political attack by his gubernatorial rivals. Steyer has expressed regret for his involvement in such projects, saying it was why he left Farallon and started focusing his energy on fighting climate change. Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer addresses a crowd during a presidential primary election-night party in Columbia, S.C. (Sean Rayford / Getty Images) Steyer previously flirted with running for governor and the U.S. Senate but decided against it, instead opting to run for president in 2020. He dropped out after spending nearly $342 million on his campaign, which gained little traction before he ended his run after the South Carolina primary.Next year’s gubernatorial race is in flux, after former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla decided not to run and Proposition 50, the successful Democratic effort to redraw congressional districts, consumed all of the political oxygen during an off-year election.Most voters are undecided about who they would like to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for reelection because of term limits, according to a poll released this month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times. Steyer had the support of 1% of voters in the survey. In recent years, Steyer has been a longtime benefactor of progressive causes, most recently spending $12 million to support the redistricting ballot measure. But when he was the focus of one of the ads, rumors spiraled that he was considering a run for governor.In prior California ballot initiatives, Steyer successfully supported efforts to close a corporate tax loophole and to raise tobacco taxes, and fought oil-industry-backed efforts to roll back environmental law.His campaign platform is to build 1 million homes in four years, lower energy costs by ending monopolies, make preschool and community college free and ban corporate contributions to political action committees in California elections.Steyer’s brother Jim, the leader of Common Sense Media, and former Biden administration U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy are aiming to put an initiative on next year’s ballot to protect children from social media, specifically the chatbots that have been accused of prompting young people to kill themselves. Newsom recently vetoed a bill aimed at addressing this artificial intelligence issue.

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.