Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

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

How Climate Change Is Increasing Landslide Risk Worldwide

News Feed
Tuesday, September 16, 2025

The landslide behind my neighbor’s backyard doesn’t exist—not according to the New York State landslide map or Greene County’s hazard-mitigation plan or the federal inventory managed by the U.S. Geological Survey. But when you’re standing in the middle of the debris field, the violence of the event is still evident 14 years after it occurred. The fan of the landslide, where a surge of boulders and mud blasted the forest open after rushing down the steeper slopes of Arizona Mountain in the Catskills, is about 100 feet wide—an undulating plane of rocks, mangled tree trunks, and invasive plants such as Japanese stiltgrass that thrive in disturbed areas.On a hot July day the seasonal stream that runs through this ravine, named the Shingle Kill, is small enough to step over. When Tropical Storm Irene hovered over these mountains on August 28, 2011, the Shingle Kill swelled like all the otherwise unremarkable streams in the area, frothing downhill in a torrent the color of chocolate milk. This storm was a particularly bad one, dropping up to 18 inches of rain on the northeastern escarpment of the Catskills. Throughout the region explosive rivers eroded their banks, flooding towns and ripping away buildings.The first house the Shingle Kill passes as it emerges into our community belonged at the time to Diane and Ken Herchenroder, who had lived there for nearly three decades. In the past, when the Shingle Kill occasionally raged, they could hear rocks colliding in the streambed. But this time it was louder—and faster.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.From the screened-in front porch of their 1880s colonial, they saw the stream crest its banks. First it took out a 32-foot-long footbridge that connected one side of the property to the other. Then trees started coming downriver, crashing into a culvert at the bottom of the yard. The culvert clogged, washing out the road. Water got diverted across their lawn on one side of the stream, and in the other direction it blew out the garage side door, then the front doors. (Their lawn tractor was found downstream days later.) Diane watched her row of beloved lilac bushes, probably more than 100 years old and 15 feet tall, get ripped from their roots. “They just floated away. And we thought, that’s going to be it,” she recalls. “Then we heard a rumble like a train barreling down the mountain.”Less than 2,000 feet above, in a hollow high on Arizona Mountain, oversaturated soils released themselves into the headwaters of the Shingle Kill, picking up speed and whatever materials the flow encountered as it carved downhill.As the slope flattened out, the landslide blew open the channel and spread out, depositing a wall of uprooted trees just upstream of the house. A slurry of rocks and mud continued flowing, plugging the Shingle Kill streambed all the way to the road, where it was stopped by the debris dam at the culvert.Robert Titus, a retired geology professor, and his wife, Johanna Titus, explored the slide about a month later for their Kaatskill Geologist column in a local newspaper. “We don’t use the words ‘awe,’ ‘awesome’ or ‘awed’ very often; we save them for when they are truly appropriate,” they wrote. “This was one of those times.” They described scenes that were evidence of boulders “floating on the moving muds,” as well as hundreds of “twisted and broken trees” that had been thrown high above the stream bank and were now stranded on top of the ravine. The Tituses recently told me it was unlike anything they had seen before or since.In July 2025, days of heavy rain triggered multiple mudslides and rockslides in New York State's Adirondacks, including this one on Mount Colden. It blocked access to hiking trails in a popular recreation spot in the High Peaks Wilderness area.To this day, the scar where the landslide began is unmissable from miles away.That this landslide didn’t get recorded is somewhat a quirk of disaster recovery. Debris from the slide itself wasn’t the singular cause of damage to any buildings or roads, so there was no financial fingerprint. The slide didn’t injure or kill anyone. Landslides aren’t mapped in the same way that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for instance, tracks flood zones and inundation risk, and a rate of occurrence can’t be modeled like a flood. Because landslide insurance practically doesn’t exist in most of the country, no one needs the data to assess actuarial risk for homeowners. According to the New York Geological Survey, the vast majority of landslides in the state go unreported.But the Shingle Kill landslide did change the mountainside that day. Joel DuBois, director of the Greene County Department of Soil and Water, visited the site in the days after Irene and reviewed some recent photos of the stream corridor that was affected by the debris flow. “There appear to be a number of cycles of incision and aggradation,” DuBois wrote. “That is to say that channel incision, or down-cutting, results in steeper bank angles and higher bank heights, leaving the adjacent hillsides susceptible to landslide” both during and after flood events. The sediment then flows downstream and accumulates at existing debris dams, which tends to cause channels to migrate laterally, he explained. That too can trigger landslide activity.The area remains vulnerable at a time when landslide risk is expected to increase across much of the northeastern U.S.—as well as a lot of the world. That’s because climate change is causing concentrated bursts of rain that fall over a short period to occur more frequently. Such intense rainfall events are known to be the biggest trigger of landslides.It’s not quite right to say landslides aren’t common in the Catskills, because this superold plateau has been eroding for perhaps a few hundred million years. On a nongeological timescale, though, landslide susceptibility isn’t something many people think about in New York State, and the state geological survey can estimate only that between 100 and 400 occur every year.As warmer temperatures lead to more moisture in the air, climate change is quickly warping that math. In the Northeast, the heaviest rainstorms are now 60 percent heavier than they were in the 1950s, according to the Fifth National Climate Assessment. In a 2023 study, researchers at Dartmouth College found that extreme precipitation in the region will increase by 52 percent by the end of this century, mostly because of a higher number of such events each year. “Our landscape has pretty much been in equilibrium, for the most part, since the glaciers left,” Andrew Kozlowski, a New York State geologist, explained during a 2022 USGS presentation. “With climate change, we may be shifting that equilibrium and throwing all of this completely off balance, and there’s going to be a natural readjustment.”“Landslide” is the broad term for the movement of soils, rocks, and other debris down a slope. There are several different classifications for landslides. Some, like the Shingle Kill debris flow, move far too fast to be outrun. More than any other factor, they are set off by an intense storm. Others, such as rotational slides—backward-curving masses of material that can be hundreds of feet deep—are more sensitive to rainfall over the course of a season. They can move very slowly when a destabilized slope takes months to fail.Landslides can happen pretty much anywhere certain conditions exist but are most common in very steep mountain terrain where plenty of rain falls. In 2024 the U.S. Landslide Susceptibility Index was released and stated that 44 percent of the land in the U.S. could potentially experience landslide activity. Susceptibility is based partly on where landslides have occurred previously, and it wasn’t until the past decade that high-resolution lidar made it possible for states to survey vast swaths of land for evidence and clues. The extent to which states have done so is uneven.Benjamin DeJong, director of the Vermont Geological Survey, says you can think of landslide susceptibility as an inexact recipe. You’re going to need steeper slopes to achieve some kind of baseload that puts weight on the slope. Next, add loose, unconsolidated materials that can become saturated with water. If those saturated materials are overlying or underlying another kind of material that has very different permeability, meaning its ability to take in water, that contrast is a big factor.“By far the year that had the greatest total landslides that I’ve recorded was 2024. Last year was completely off the scale.” —David Petley University of HullThen you look at what’s on the base and on the top of the slope. If the base, or toe, is undercut—by a road, for instance, or a meandering stream—that’s going to make the slope more susceptible. Overloading the top, or head, of a slope with weight also drives it toward failure.The fourth ingredient is the loss of vegetation that helps to hold soils together. In California, for example, this loss happens on a regular cycle with wildfires. Vermont, DeJong says, went through an experiment in the 1800s where “the state tried to turn itself into Scotland by cutting down all the trees and bringing in sheep.” It was a bad idea that caused erosion and mass slope failure everywhere. The state gave up on that plan and allowed the forests to regrow. The last variable is how the slope handles stormwater. With more extreme precipitation events, it doesn’t take much mismanagement of a slope for the heavy weight of rain to concentrate in ways that cause the slope to fail.Geologist David Petley, who writes the Landslide Blog for the American Geophysical Union, has been maintaining a database of deadly landslides worldwide since 2004. He’s seen a clear long-term trend. “But by far—by far—the year that had the greatest total landslides that I’ve recorded was 2024,” he says. “Last year was completely off the scale.” Why? “The most simple hypothesis is that it was the year with the highest-ever global temperature. I do genuinely think it’s that simple.” There’s solid evidence that high atmospheric temperature, and possibly high sea-surface temperatures as well, drove high-precipitation events globally. “Last year I saw an extraordinary frequency of big storms that were triggering hundreds of thousands of landslides,” Petley says. They occurred at different locations all over the world.In the U.S., the remnants of Hurricane Helene, which came ashore in Florida in September 2024, dumped between 20 and 30 inches of water over the mountains of North Carolina. The storm ended up triggering more than 2,000 landslides across the Southeast. According to the USGS, in some cases several smaller mudslides converged into a single channel, burying entire communities in debris. The total number of people killed by landslides specifically, versus by flooding or a combination of the two, is hard to parse. But one storm-triggered mudslide in Craigtown, N.C., swept through a house, killing 11 members of the Craig family for whom the town is named. During the storm, four successive landslides in that valley wiped out the town.In the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina, very old landslides might have been “brought back into activity” during Helene, Petley explains, reactivated by staggeringly intense rain. Scientists at World Weather Attribution pinned that extra intensity on climate change, reporting that it had made the storm’s rainfall throughout the Southeast about 10 percent heavier and the “unprecedented” rainfall totals over three days about 70 percent more likely than they would have been otherwise.In California, where dramatic debris flows have long been a concern, climate change is making matters worse in two ways. Bigger, more destructive wildfires wipe out more of the vegetation that was stabilizing the landscape. And then atmospheric rivers—a newer phenomenon consisting of long, narrow conveyer belts of moisture—arrive, bringing a series of intense rainfall events. Between December 2022 and January 2023 nine back-to-back atmospheric rivers struck California, leading to more than 600 landslides.Climate change is increasing landslide risk globally in other ways. In high mountain regions such as the European Alps and the Himalayas, melting permafrost and retreating glaciers are destabilizing steep slopes. A catastrophic glacier collapse in Switzerland this past summer destroyed an entire village; thankfully officials evacuated people just before it happened, but one person was killed.A section of the Shingle Kill streambed 14 years after a debris flow occurred on Arizona Mountain in New York State's Catskills during intense rain. The southern slope, shown on the left, continues to erode.Petley says the thing that’s surprised him most recently is the speed of change, especially during this past El Niño cycle. Strong rainfall events have always happened occasionally, but suddenly they are happening a lot. “I don’t think I fully understand why we’re seeing such a rapid shift to these events where a heavy rainfall will trigger 2,000 or 3,000 landslides in a relatively small area,” Petley says. In New Zealand in 2023, Cyclone Gabrielle triggered at least 100,000 landslides. Even in regions such as the Himalayas, where the monsoon season is becoming drier overall, the number of landslides is going up because the rainstorms that do arrive are more intense. “I worry a bit,” Petley says, “that the shift is happening so fast and becoming so extreme that in some places the risk is essentially unmanageable.”Vermont, like New York State, got clobbered by Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. DeJong, the Vermont state geologist, describes Irene as a wake-up call. “The mountains,” he says with a degree of irony, “are now where hurricanes come to die.”But it wasn’t until two freak July rainstorms—spaced exactly a year apart, one in 2023 and one in 2024—that the state’s geological survey became alarmed that landslides were going to be a much bigger problem than in the past. Given his experiences with Irene, DeJong expected the July 2023 storm to lead to maybe a handful of slides. Within a month of the storm his team had received more than 70 requests for landslide evaluations. Working on the ground in the aftermath of these two storms made DeJong realize that rainfall events at that scale “are fundamentally altering the landscape in ways that are not immediately recognizable,” he says.Now the four-person Vermont Geological Survey team is working on putting together a landslide-susceptibility map. The goal is to start with a more technical tool for scientists that can be overlaid with forecasts from the National Weather Service, which would create debris-flow forecasts like the ones already produced by the Los Angeles Department of Public Works. If that’s successful, the next step, DeJong says, would be creating a map that’s more accessible to the public, something that a person who’s looking to buy a parcel of land could reference to do some due diligence on landslide risk.But that gets tricky. The city of Juneau, Alaska, carried out a mapping project to evaluate levels of risk, with the aim of incorporating that risk into its land-use planning in 2024. The maps also would have highlighted concerns with existing buildings, though, meaning homeowners identified as living in high-risk areas might see their property values decline. Juneau’s susceptibility map was vehemently rejected by the community last year and was not adopted. In Vermont, as in many places, evidence of slope instability—and even past failures—hardly factors into development or the issuing of building permits.Rising landslide risk in mountainous places also creates a difficult tension about how to adapt to the effects of climate change. Recent disasters have made clear that mountain valleys in certain regions may not be great places to live. In Vermont “we’re losing a lot of housing in our flood corridors—which is a good thing,” DeJong says. “We’re getting people out of harm’s way.” But the state, like many others around the country, has a housing crunch with the need to build more. “When we’ve lost options down in the valleys, that puts a lot of building pressure up onto our slopes,” he explains. “And it’s really hard to make the argument not to do that.” Successfully adapting to one climate effect means running headlong into another.There are many climate-related problems to worry about in my Catskills community: the surging numbers of disease-carrying ticks, the choking out of native plants by invasive species, the hurricane-remnant floods, the decrease in winter snowfall that would replenish the aquifers, the summertime whiplash between deluge and drought. The Shingle Kill landslide wasn’t on my radar as a potential climate problem until a massive, ultraluxury resort and “branded residences” development was proposed for the hillside next to it. The plan calls for building more than 85 new structures totaling 275,593 square feet on a 102-acre site, 45 percent of which is classified as having steep slopes. To do so, developers will have to cut down about 11 acres of trees. The site, like the rest of our hamlet, has no access to municipal water or sewage. In addition to lining ponds for water storage and building a wastewater-treatment plant, a road network will be cut into the mountainside.The public documents for the project do not appear to show that a geologist evaluated whether the weight of all that development, plus the deforestation and excavation during construction, might further destabilize the slopes of the Shingle Kill. Our town planning board approved the project in May 2025 without requiring an environmental impact statement that would have identified and attempted to mitigate the biggest hazards. (I am a member of a community group that is suing our town planning board, arguing it didn’t take a hard look at potentially significant adverse effects to the environment from this project, including on groundwater availability, erosion, flooding and landslide risk.)Recent intense rain events “are fundamentally altering the landscape in ways that are not immediately recognizable.” —Benjamin DeJong Vermont Geological SurveyDiane and Ken Herchenroder’s house wasn’t damaged by the 2011 landslide, but the event did plenty of harm. Much of their property was rearranged by the acute displacement of raging water. The solid plug of rocks and mud, some 10 feet tall, had to be excavated from the streambed. Even once things were fixed, they didn’t want to stay. “We used to listen to the rain and the stream with the windows open, and it was very comforting,” Diane says from their house in New Hampshire, where they moved two years after the storm. “Honestly, after that slide occurred, Ken and I, I would have to say, have a little bit of post-traumatic stress from that.” Diane says her photographs of the landslide are on a CD somewhere; she hasn’t looked at them since. “I don’t really ever even talk about that day,” she says. “It was pretty devastating.”In 2018 Joe Merlino bought the Herchenroders’ former property, where he now lives with his daughter and his mother. A few years ago they had members of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers come assess ongoing erosion along the Shingle Kill. The streambed continues to widen, and a sharp curve just upstream of Merlino’s house means floodwaters could rush right at it. He recalls that in 2021, when Tropical Storm Henri came through the Catskills, boulders smashed against the bridge that provides access between his house and his mom’s trailer. “[The Army Corps] basically told us the erosion is not going to stop,” Merlino says.Merlino often walks along the edges of the fan with his dog, observing the changes to the old debris piles with each storm. The possibility of more landslide activity is never far from his mind, he says, especially with a major development approved for the hillside above his home.I asked him whether he gets scared every time there’s heavy rain. “I come home from work early,” he says, to keep an eye on things and intervene if necessary. A few years ago he moved his daughter’s bedroom to the front of the house, away from the steep pitch of his backyard. “My fear is about my living room, which is in the back and has a lot of glass,” he says. “I watch the water rip around that curve, and one day something is going to come through and take the side of my house right out.”Greene County, where the Merlino family and I both live, is one of the four counties identified by New York State as the most vulnerable to expected annual building loss from landslides in the future. The county has steep escarpments that slope into the Hudson River Valley, which is rich in clays and silts from Glacial Lake Albany, a prehistoric waterbody that drained some 10,500 years ago. “I think we’re going to see a lot more slope failures in some of these populated areas in the Hudson Valley,” Kozlowski, the New York State geologist, said in 2022.Greene County considered landslides a threat back in 2016. In 2023 the county revisited its hazard-mitigation plan; our town, Cairo, was the only municipality out of 19 that did not participate. In the updated plan, the county removed landslides as a hazard, reasoning that they are “unlikely to lead to a disaster.”It’s true that landslides don’t do the same economic harm to our county as flooding and ice storms. But when they do occur, rebuilding is rarely an option. When a family lost their house in the town of Catskill to a landslide after a heavy rain event in May 2024, there wasn’t much anyone could do but condemn the structure.With funding for emergency response and climate resilience endangered at the federal level, is it worth investing in susceptibility maps for landslides that may never occur? Should people hesitate to build on potentially unstable slopes when that’s perhaps less risky than living directly in a flood path?DeJong says these are valid questions, but after his experiences over the past few years, he sees things differently. “We in Vermont have, so far, been incredibly fortunate to not see any fatalities,” he says. He remembers an older couple who were sitting in their house in July 2023 when the slope behind it failed. The structure warped outward, bending absurdly into something “that looked like a fun house falling over on them,” he recalls. Emergency services extracted them relatively unharmed, but DeJong knows it could have been worse. It turned out a lot worse in western North Carolina during Helene, where for years many building codes dismissed the risk of construction on steep slopes.It might take only one bad slide to change people’s minds about the risk. Before 2014, DeJong says, Washington State, much like New England, did not pay much attention to landslides and had no landslide program in its state geological survey. But then a slope in Oso, about an hour outside Seattle, experienced a catastrophic failure, taking out a neighborhood and killing 43 people. The state now takes landslides very seriously.“The Oso slide of New England could be right around the corner,” DeJong says. “People will say, ‘Why didn’t we know about this hazard? X number of people just died.’” He hopes his team can get its landslide-susceptibility maps finished so that when big rainfall events are forecast for the Green Mountains, officials can warn people in especially risky areas. “We’re really trying to switch to being more proactive so that X never becomes a number.”

As warming temperatures bring more extreme rain to the mountains, debris flows are on the rise

The landslide behind my neighbor’s backyard doesn’t exist—not according to the New York State landslide map or Greene County’s hazard-mitigation plan or the federal inventory managed by the U.S. Geological Survey. But when you’re standing in the middle of the debris field, the violence of the event is still evident 14 years after it occurred. The fan of the landslide, where a surge of boulders and mud blasted the forest open after rushing down the steeper slopes of Arizona Mountain in the Catskills, is about 100 feet wide—an undulating plane of rocks, mangled tree trunks, and invasive plants such as Japanese stiltgrass that thrive in disturbed areas.

On a hot July day the seasonal stream that runs through this ravine, named the Shingle Kill, is small enough to step over. When Tropical Storm Irene hovered over these mountains on August 28, 2011, the Shingle Kill swelled like all the otherwise unremarkable streams in the area, frothing downhill in a torrent the color of chocolate milk. This storm was a particularly bad one, dropping up to 18 inches of rain on the northeastern escarpment of the Catskills. Throughout the region explosive rivers eroded their banks, flooding towns and ripping away buildings.

The first house the Shingle Kill passes as it emerges into our community belonged at the time to Diane and Ken Herchenroder, who had lived there for nearly three decades. In the past, when the Shingle Kill occasionally raged, they could hear rocks colliding in the streambed. But this time it was louder—and faster.


On supporting science journalism

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


From the screened-in front porch of their 1880s colonial, they saw the stream crest its banks. First it took out a 32-foot-long footbridge that connected one side of the property to the other. Then trees started coming downriver, crashing into a culvert at the bottom of the yard. The culvert clogged, washing out the road. Water got diverted across their lawn on one side of the stream, and in the other direction it blew out the garage side door, then the front doors. (Their lawn tractor was found downstream days later.) Diane watched her row of beloved lilac bushes, probably more than 100 years old and 15 feet tall, get ripped from their roots. “They just floated away. And we thought, that’s going to be it,” she recalls. “Then we heard a rumble like a train barreling down the mountain.”

Less than 2,000 feet above, in a hollow high on Arizona Mountain, oversaturated soils released themselves into the headwaters of the Shingle Kill, picking up speed and whatever materials the flow encountered as it carved downhill.

As the slope flattened out, the landslide blew open the channel and spread out, depositing a wall of uprooted trees just upstream of the house. A slurry of rocks and mud continued flowing, plugging the Shingle Kill streambed all the way to the road, where it was stopped by the debris dam at the culvert.

Robert Titus, a retired geology professor, and his wife, Johanna Titus, explored the slide about a month later for their Kaatskill Geologist column in a local newspaper. “We don’t use the words ‘awe,’ ‘awesome’ or ‘awed’ very often; we save them for when they are truly appropriate,” they wrote. “This was one of those times.” They described scenes that were evidence of boulders “floating on the moving muds,” as well as hundreds of “twisted and broken trees” that had been thrown high above the stream bank and were now stranded on top of the ravine. The Tituses recently told me it was unlike anything they had seen before or since.

Photo of landslide in upstate New York

In July 2025, days of heavy rain triggered multiple mudslides and rockslides in New York State's Adirondacks, including this one on Mount Colden. It blocked access to hiking trails in a popular recreation spot in the High Peaks Wilderness area.

To this day, the scar where the landslide began is unmissable from miles away.

That this landslide didn’t get recorded is somewhat a quirk of disaster recovery. Debris from the slide itself wasn’t the singular cause of damage to any buildings or roads, so there was no financial fingerprint. The slide didn’t injure or kill anyone. Landslides aren’t mapped in the same way that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for instance, tracks flood zones and inundation risk, and a rate of occurrence can’t be modeled like a flood. Because landslide insurance practically doesn’t exist in most of the country, no one needs the data to assess actuarial risk for homeowners. According to the New York Geological Survey, the vast majority of landslides in the state go unreported.

But the Shingle Kill landslide did change the mountainside that day. Joel DuBois, director of the Greene County Department of Soil and Water, visited the site in the days after Irene and reviewed some recent photos of the stream corridor that was affected by the debris flow. “There appear to be a number of cycles of incision and aggradation,” DuBois wrote. “That is to say that channel incision, or down-cutting, results in steeper bank angles and higher bank heights, leaving the adjacent hillsides susceptible to landslide” both during and after flood events. The sediment then flows downstream and accumulates at existing debris dams, which tends to cause channels to migrate laterally, he explained. That too can trigger landslide activity.

The area remains vulnerable at a time when landslide risk is expected to increase across much of the northeastern U.S.—as well as a lot of the world. That’s because climate change is causing concentrated bursts of rain that fall over a short period to occur more frequently. Such intense rainfall events are known to be the biggest trigger of landslides.

It’s not quite right to say landslides aren’t common in the Catskills, because this superold plateau has been eroding for perhaps a few hundred million years. On a nongeological timescale, though, landslide susceptibility isn’t something many people think about in New York State, and the state geological survey can estimate only that between 100 and 400 occur every year.

As warmer temperatures lead to more moisture in the air, climate change is quickly warping that math. In the Northeast, the heaviest rainstorms are now 60 percent heavier than they were in the 1950s, according to the Fifth National Climate Assessment. In a 2023 study, researchers at Dartmouth College found that extreme precipitation in the region will increase by 52 percent by the end of this century, mostly because of a higher number of such events each year. “Our landscape has pretty much been in equilibrium, for the most part, since the glaciers left,” Andrew Kozlowski, a New York State geologist, explained during a 2022 USGS presentation. “With climate change, we may be shifting that equilibrium and throwing all of this completely off balance, and there’s going to be a natural readjustment.”


“Landslide” is the broad term for the movement of soils, rocks, and other debris down a slope. There are several different classifications for landslides. Some, like the Shingle Kill debris flow, move far too fast to be outrun. More than any other factor, they are set off by an intense storm. Others, such as rotational slides—backward-curving masses of material that can be hundreds of feet deep—are more sensitive to rainfall over the course of a season. They can move very slowly when a destabilized slope takes months to fail.

Landslides can happen pretty much anywhere certain conditions exist but are most common in very steep mountain terrain where plenty of rain falls. In 2024 the U.S. Landslide Susceptibility Index was released and stated that 44 percent of the land in the U.S. could potentially experience landslide activity. Susceptibility is based partly on where landslides have occurred previously, and it wasn’t until the past decade that high-resolution lidar made it possible for states to survey vast swaths of land for evidence and clues. The extent to which states have done so is uneven.

Benjamin DeJong, director of the Vermont Geological Survey, says you can think of landslide susceptibility as an inexact recipe. You’re going to need steeper slopes to achieve some kind of baseload that puts weight on the slope. Next, add loose, unconsolidated materials that can become saturated with water. If those saturated materials are overlying or underlying another kind of material that has very different permeability, meaning its ability to take in water, that contrast is a big factor.

“By far the year that had the greatest total landslides that I’ve recorded was 2024. Last year was completely off the scale.” —David Petley University of Hull

Then you look at what’s on the base and on the top of the slope. If the base, or toe, is undercut—by a road, for instance, or a meandering stream—that’s going to make the slope more susceptible. Overloading the top, or head, of a slope with weight also drives it toward failure.

The fourth ingredient is the loss of vegetation that helps to hold soils together. In California, for example, this loss happens on a regular cycle with wildfires. Vermont, DeJong says, went through an experiment in the 1800s where “the state tried to turn itself into Scotland by cutting down all the trees and bringing in sheep.” It was a bad idea that caused erosion and mass slope failure everywhere. The state gave up on that plan and allowed the forests to regrow. The last variable is how the slope handles stormwater. With more extreme precipitation events, it doesn’t take much mismanagement of a slope for the heavy weight of rain to concentrate in ways that cause the slope to fail.

Geologist David Petley, who writes the Landslide Blog for the American Geophysical Union, has been maintaining a database of deadly landslides worldwide since 2004. He’s seen a clear long-term trend. “But by far—by far—the year that had the greatest total landslides that I’ve recorded was 2024,” he says. “Last year was completely off the scale.” Why? “The most simple hypothesis is that it was the year with the highest-ever global temperature. I do genuinely think it’s that simple.” There’s solid evidence that high atmospheric temperature, and possibly high sea-surface temperatures as well, drove high-precipitation events globally. “Last year I saw an extraordinary frequency of big storms that were triggering hundreds of thousands of landslides,” Petley says. They occurred at different locations all over the world.

In the U.S., the remnants of Hurricane Helene, which came ashore in Florida in September 2024, dumped between 20 and 30 inches of water over the mountains of North Carolina. The storm ended up triggering more than 2,000 landslides across the Southeast. According to the USGS, in some cases several smaller mudslides converged into a single channel, burying entire communities in debris. The total number of people killed by landslides specifically, versus by flooding or a combination of the two, is hard to parse. But one storm-triggered mudslide in Craigtown, N.C., swept through a house, killing 11 members of the Craig family for whom the town is named. During the storm, four successive landslides in that valley wiped out the town.

In the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina, very old landslides might have been “brought back into activity” during Helene, Petley explains, reactivated by staggeringly intense rain. Scientists at World Weather Attribution pinned that extra intensity on climate change, reporting that it had made the storm’s rainfall throughout the Southeast about 10 percent heavier and the “unprecedented” rainfall totals over three days about 70 percent more likely than they would have been otherwise.

In California, where dramatic debris flows have long been a concern, climate change is making matters worse in two ways. Bigger, more destructive wildfires wipe out more of the vegetation that was stabilizing the landscape. And then atmospheric rivers—a newer phenomenon consisting of long, narrow conveyer belts of moisture—arrive, bringing a series of intense rainfall events. Between December 2022 and January 2023 nine back-to-back atmospheric rivers struck California, leading to more than 600 landslides.

Climate change is increasing landslide risk globally in other ways. In high mountain regions such as the European Alps and the Himalayas, melting permafrost and retreating glaciers are destabilizing steep slopes. A catastrophic glacier collapse in Switzerland this past summer destroyed an entire village; thankfully officials evacuated people just before it happened, but one person was killed.

Photo of landslide in upstate New York

A section of the Shingle Kill streambed 14 years after a debris flow occurred on Arizona Mountain in New York State's Catskills during intense rain. The southern slope, shown on the left, continues to erode.

Petley says the thing that’s surprised him most recently is the speed of change, especially during this past El Niño cycle. Strong rainfall events have always happened occasionally, but suddenly they are happening a lot. “I don’t think I fully understand why we’re seeing such a rapid shift to these events where a heavy rainfall will trigger 2,000 or 3,000 landslides in a relatively small area,” Petley says. In New Zealand in 2023, Cyclone Gabrielle triggered at least 100,000 landslides. Even in regions such as the Himalayas, where the monsoon season is becoming drier overall, the number of landslides is going up because the rainstorms that do arrive are more intense. “I worry a bit,” Petley says, “that the shift is happening so fast and becoming so extreme that in some places the risk is essentially unmanageable.”

Vermont, like New York State, got clobbered by Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. DeJong, the Vermont state geologist, describes Irene as a wake-up call. “The mountains,” he says with a degree of irony, “are now where hurricanes come to die.”

But it wasn’t until two freak July rainstorms—spaced exactly a year apart, one in 2023 and one in 2024—that the state’s geological survey became alarmed that landslides were going to be a much bigger problem than in the past. Given his experiences with Irene, DeJong expected the July 2023 storm to lead to maybe a handful of slides. Within a month of the storm his team had received more than 70 requests for landslide evaluations. Working on the ground in the aftermath of these two storms made DeJong realize that rainfall events at that scale “are fundamentally altering the landscape in ways that are not immediately recognizable,” he says.

Now the four-person Vermont Geological Survey team is working on putting together a landslide-susceptibility map. The goal is to start with a more technical tool for scientists that can be overlaid with forecasts from the National Weather Service, which would create debris-flow forecasts like the ones already produced by the Los Angeles Department of Public Works. If that’s successful, the next step, DeJong says, would be creating a map that’s more accessible to the public, something that a person who’s looking to buy a parcel of land could reference to do some due diligence on landslide risk.

But that gets tricky. The city of Juneau, Alaska, carried out a mapping project to evaluate levels of risk, with the aim of incorporating that risk into its land-use planning in 2024. The maps also would have highlighted concerns with existing buildings, though, meaning homeowners identified as living in high-risk areas might see their property values decline. Juneau’s susceptibility map was vehemently rejected by the community last year and was not adopted. In Vermont, as in many places, evidence of slope instability—and even past failures—hardly factors into development or the issuing of building permits.

Rising landslide risk in mountainous places also creates a difficult tension about how to adapt to the effects of climate change. Recent disasters have made clear that mountain valleys in certain regions may not be great places to live. In Vermont “we’re losing a lot of housing in our flood corridors—which is a good thing,” DeJong says. “We’re getting people out of harm’s way.” But the state, like many others around the country, has a housing crunch with the need to build more. “When we’ve lost options down in the valleys, that puts a lot of building pressure up onto our slopes,” he explains. “And it’s really hard to make the argument not to do that.” Successfully adapting to one climate effect means running headlong into another.


There are many climate-related problems to worry about in my Catskills community: the surging numbers of disease-carrying ticks, the choking out of native plants by invasive species, the hurricane-remnant floods, the decrease in winter snowfall that would replenish the aquifers, the summertime whiplash between deluge and drought. The Shingle Kill landslide wasn’t on my radar as a potential climate problem until a massive, ultraluxury resort and “branded residences” development was proposed for the hillside next to it. The plan calls for building more than 85 new structures totaling 275,593 square feet on a 102-acre site, 45 percent of which is classified as having steep slopes. To do so, developers will have to cut down about 11 acres of trees. The site, like the rest of our hamlet, has no access to municipal water or sewage. In addition to lining ponds for water storage and building a wastewater-treatment plant, a road network will be cut into the mountainside.

The public documents for the project do not appear to show that a geologist evaluated whether the weight of all that development, plus the deforestation and excavation during construction, might further destabilize the slopes of the Shingle Kill. Our town planning board approved the project in May 2025 without requiring an environmental impact statement that would have identified and attempted to mitigate the biggest hazards. (I am a member of a community group that is suing our town planning board, arguing it didn’t take a hard look at potentially significant adverse effects to the environment from this project, including on groundwater availability, erosion, flooding and landslide risk.)

Recent intense rain events “are fundamentally altering the landscape in ways that are not immediately recognizable.” —Benjamin DeJong Vermont Geological Survey

Diane and Ken Herchenroder’s house wasn’t damaged by the 2011 landslide, but the event did plenty of harm. Much of their property was rearranged by the acute displacement of raging water. The solid plug of rocks and mud, some 10 feet tall, had to be excavated from the streambed. Even once things were fixed, they didn’t want to stay. “We used to listen to the rain and the stream with the windows open, and it was very comforting,” Diane says from their house in New Hampshire, where they moved two years after the storm. “Honestly, after that slide occurred, Ken and I, I would have to say, have a little bit of post-traumatic stress from that.” Diane says her photographs of the landslide are on a CD somewhere; she hasn’t looked at them since. “I don’t really ever even talk about that day,” she says. “It was pretty devastating.”

In 2018 Joe Merlino bought the Herchenroders’ former property, where he now lives with his daughter and his mother. A few years ago they had members of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers come assess ongoing erosion along the Shingle Kill. The streambed continues to widen, and a sharp curve just upstream of Merlino’s house means floodwaters could rush right at it. He recalls that in 2021, when Tropical Storm Henri came through the Catskills, boulders smashed against the bridge that provides access between his house and his mom’s trailer. “[The Army Corps] basically told us the erosion is not going to stop,” Merlino says.

Merlino often walks along the edges of the fan with his dog, observing the changes to the old debris piles with each storm. The possibility of more landslide activity is never far from his mind, he says, especially with a major development approved for the hillside above his home.

I asked him whether he gets scared every time there’s heavy rain. “I come home from work early,” he says, to keep an eye on things and intervene if necessary. A few years ago he moved his daughter’s bedroom to the front of the house, away from the steep pitch of his backyard. “My fear is about my living room, which is in the back and has a lot of glass,” he says. “I watch the water rip around that curve, and one day something is going to come through and take the side of my house right out.”

Greene County, where the Merlino family and I both live, is one of the four counties identified by New York State as the most vulnerable to expected annual building loss from landslides in the future. The county has steep escarpments that slope into the Hudson River Valley, which is rich in clays and silts from Glacial Lake Albany, a prehistoric waterbody that drained some 10,500 years ago. “I think we’re going to see a lot more slope failures in some of these populated areas in the Hudson Valley,” Kozlowski, the New York State geologist, said in 2022.

Greene County considered landslides a threat back in 2016. In 2023 the county revisited its hazard-mitigation plan; our town, Cairo, was the only municipality out of 19 that did not participate. In the updated plan, the county removed landslides as a hazard, reasoning that they are “unlikely to lead to a disaster.”

It’s true that landslides don’t do the same economic harm to our county as flooding and ice storms. But when they do occur, rebuilding is rarely an option. When a family lost their house in the town of Catskill to a landslide after a heavy rain event in May 2024, there wasn’t much anyone could do but condemn the structure.

With funding for emergency response and climate resilience endangered at the federal level, is it worth investing in susceptibility maps for landslides that may never occur? Should people hesitate to build on potentially unstable slopes when that’s perhaps less risky than living directly in a flood path?

DeJong says these are valid questions, but after his experiences over the past few years, he sees things differently. “We in Vermont have, so far, been incredibly fortunate to not see any fatalities,” he says. He remembers an older couple who were sitting in their house in July 2023 when the slope behind it failed. The structure warped outward, bending absurdly into something “that looked like a fun house falling over on them,” he recalls. Emergency services extracted them relatively unharmed, but DeJong knows it could have been worse. It turned out a lot worse in western North Carolina during Helene, where for years many building codes dismissed the risk of construction on steep slopes.

It might take only one bad slide to change people’s minds about the risk. Before 2014, DeJong says, Washington State, much like New England, did not pay much attention to landslides and had no landslide program in its state geological survey. But then a slope in Oso, about an hour outside Seattle, experienced a catastrophic failure, taking out a neighborhood and killing 43 people. The state now takes landslides very seriously.

“The Oso slide of New England could be right around the corner,” DeJong says. “People will say, ‘Why didn’t we know about this hazard? X number of people just died.’” He hopes his team can get its landslide-susceptibility maps finished so that when big rainfall events are forecast for the Green Mountains, officials can warn people in especially risky areas. “We’re really trying to switch to being more proactive so that X never becomes a number.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Controversial UK oil field publishes full scale of climate impact

The impact from the Rosebank oil field is estimated at nearly 250 million tonnes of planet warming CO2.

The UK's largest undeveloped oil field has revealed the full scale of its environmental impact, should it gain approval by the government.Developers of the Rosebank oil field said nearly 250 million tonnes of planet warming gas would be released from using oil products from the field.The amount would vary each year, but by comparison the UK's annual emissions in 2024 were 371 million tonnes.The field's developer said its emissions were "not significant" considering the UK's international climate commitments.Rosebank is an oil and gas field which lies about 80 miles north-west of Shetland and is one of the largest undeveloped discoveries of fossil fuels in UK waters.It is said to contain up to 300 million barrels of oil and some gas, and is owned by Norwegian energy giant Equinor and British firm Ithaca Energy.The field was originally approved in 2023, but in July a court ruled that a more detailed assessment of the field's environmental impact was required, taking into account the effect on the climate of burning any fossil fuels extracted from it.A public consultation has now been opened, and will run until 20th November 2025.The final decision on whether to approve the field will be made by the Energy Secretary.Until recently such projects were only required to consider the impact on the environment from extracting the fossil fuels.But in June last year the Supreme Court ruled that authorities must take account of the impact from also using the products, after a woman in Surrey challenged the development of her local gas project.This ruling was then used in a further challenge to the Rosebank oil field by environmental campaigners Uplift and Greenpeace - which was subsequently successful in January. Equinor was required to recalculate the "full impact" of the field and it now estimates that it will contribute an additional 249 million tonnes of the planet warming gas CO2 over the next 25 years. This is more than 50 times greater than the original figure of 4.5 million tonnes it gave from extracting the oil and gas.The UK has a target to produce no additional emissions by 2050 and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has been vocal about the need to move away from fossil fuels. On Tuesday, he told an industry conference that the UK's dependence on fossil fuels was its "Achilles' heel" and argued clean power was the only way to reduce bills.The fossil fuels for the Rosebank field are not guaranteed to be used in the UK but would be sold on the international market.As such the project is unlikely to have an impact on lowering gas prices. The UK's independent climate advisors said in 2022 that any more domestic oil and gas extraction would have "at most, a marginal effect on prices".But Arne Gurtner, Equinor's senior vice president for the UK, has previously said that: "If the UK needs Rosebank oil, it will go to the UK through open market mechanisms."

The Blue-State Governors Who’ve Gone Weak on Climate Policy

If you scroll California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press releases, a portrait emerges of a undaunted climate fighter. One day he’s “paving [the] way for climate pollution-cutting technology”; another he’s launching “new international climate partnerships as Trump unleashes unhinged UN rant.” Last month, he announced the signing of a suite of measures “saving billions on electric bills, stabilizing [the] gas market and cutting pollution.” But look under the hood, and his heroic self-image dims somewhat. That big legislative package, for instance, also increases oil drilling and sets up a regional electricity market that “could tether California to fossil-fuel states at a time when the Trump administration is moving to roll back clean energy,” CalMatters reported.With Trump in death-drive mode on climate, canceling renewable energy projects left and right and even forbidding federal agencies to use language such as “climate change,” “green,”or “sustainable,” blue-state governors are well positioned to distinguish themselves and their party on the issue. They also have a responsibility: The states are our best hope for policy at a scale to match the problem. Yet a worrying trend is taking shape: Blue-state governors are making a big show of battling the Trump administration, but on climate issues they’ve been disappointing—and sometimes downright infuriating. Last month’s climate package wasn’t the California Democrats’ first flub this year. Over the summer, in what Politico dubbed the state’s “Great Climate Retreat,” they weakened limits on the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, rolled back environmental reviews for new housing, and lifted a cap on oil industry profits. “California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,” Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, told Politico. “It’s questionable whether or not that leadership is still there.” In Maryland, a climate advisory panel appointed by Governor Wes Moore has hit the brakes on a carbon trading measure, and late last month the state Department of the Environment, or MDE, appeared to cave to the Trump administration in abandoning some environmental justice metrics, which many fear means abandoning Black and brown communities to the whims of polluters. “It just appears to me that MDE blatantly does not want to be accountable in the massive pollution and the overburden of these heavy industrial industries,” Kamita Gray, a community leader in Brandywine—a majority-Black town that’s home to gas-fired power plants, a coal ash dump, and a Superfund site—told Maryland Matters.Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania too is under fire from climate critics. As attorney general, he authored a solid road map for protecting Pennsylvanians from the harmful environmental and health effects of fracking, but in his two years as governor he has allowed companies to be secretive about the chemicals used in fracking, and has not pushed to pass any laws curbing the industry. The Environmental Health Project, a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit, said “residents are still waiting for meaningful action. Our assessment concludes that the Shapiro administration has not fulfilled the commitments the governor made to Pennsylvanians in general and to frontline communities in particular.”And then there’s New York. Governor Kathy Hochul has been failing to follow the decarbonization timeline that was outlined in the state’s 2019 climate law, prompting environmental justice groups to sue her. She has delayed plans for “cap and invest” and is dragging her feet on building public renewables (despite the state’s landmark Build Public Renewables Act, which passed in 2023). She has seemingly caved to Trump by going ahead with gas pipelines she previously rejected. And it’s unclear whether she will sign a repeal of the outdated “100 foot rule,” which requires utility ratepayers to subsize the cost of connecting new customers to the gas system, a reform that has long been a priority of the state’s climate movement.Part of what’s so self-destructive here is that energy affordability is a highly salient issue for voters, taking center stage, for example in the governor’s race in New Jersey, where electricity rates have risen 22 percent. Interviewed in Friday’s New York Times on this subject, David Springe of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates described electricity as “the new eggs,” an indicator of how costly daily life is for most Americans. Republicans in New York have seized on the problem as an opportunity to blame Democrats and climate-friendly policies. Stephan Edel of New York Renews, a progressive coalition fighting for clean energy, told me the governor “has spoken really eloquently about the need to do something about affordability.” Indeed, she endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist, for New York City mayor, partly for this reason. She often uses “affordability” to justify rightward shifts or retreats from climate policy, he said, adding that, inexplicably, she also shies away from touting the affordability benefits of climate policies that she does support. For example, in the state budget last year, she agreed to invest over a billion dollars in funding for climate programs, including one that will help make homes for low-income New Yorkers more energy efficient and another that will save school districts money by shifting to electric school buses. Instead of touting those wins for affordability—or embracing the potential of publicly owned renewables to do the same—she’s embraced the Republican narrative that climate policy and affordability are at odds.By contrast, Mikie Sherill in New Jersey has been touting clean energy as a solution to energy affordability woes. If she gets elected and continues this path, more blue state governors should follow her lead. The Democratic base is desperate to see its leaders stand up to Trump on both climate and affordability. (And when Democratic governors do stand up to Trump on anything—Illinois’s JB Pritzker on the militarization of Chicago, Maine’s Janet Mills on health care—their poll numbers spike.)And the reverse is also true—failing to differentiate themselves from Trump has been political suicide for many Democrats. “Every time one of these elected officials says, ‘I’m going to stand up to Trump, I’m going to protect affordability, I’m going to address climate change,’ and then doesn’t do it,” that’s a win for the Republicans, Edel said, because it fuels low turnout for Democratic voters. Climate offers an obvious opportunity to isolate the Republicans on a matter of broad concern, renew Americans’ faith in government, and make real progress. The Democratic governors flailing so badly on this issue have not only a moral obligation to change course, but also a political one.

If you scroll California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press releases, a portrait emerges of a undaunted climate fighter. One day he’s “paving [the] way for climate pollution-cutting technology”; another he’s launching “new international climate partnerships as Trump unleashes unhinged UN rant.” Last month, he announced the signing of a suite of measures “saving billions on electric bills, stabilizing [the] gas market and cutting pollution.” But look under the hood, and his heroic self-image dims somewhat. That big legislative package, for instance, also increases oil drilling and sets up a regional electricity market that “could tether California to fossil-fuel states at a time when the Trump administration is moving to roll back clean energy,” CalMatters reported.With Trump in death-drive mode on climate, canceling renewable energy projects left and right and even forbidding federal agencies to use language such as “climate change,” “green,”or “sustainable,” blue-state governors are well positioned to distinguish themselves and their party on the issue. They also have a responsibility: The states are our best hope for policy at a scale to match the problem. Yet a worrying trend is taking shape: Blue-state governors are making a big show of battling the Trump administration, but on climate issues they’ve been disappointing—and sometimes downright infuriating. Last month’s climate package wasn’t the California Democrats’ first flub this year. Over the summer, in what Politico dubbed the state’s “Great Climate Retreat,” they weakened limits on the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, rolled back environmental reviews for new housing, and lifted a cap on oil industry profits. “California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,” Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, told Politico. “It’s questionable whether or not that leadership is still there.” In Maryland, a climate advisory panel appointed by Governor Wes Moore has hit the brakes on a carbon trading measure, and late last month the state Department of the Environment, or MDE, appeared to cave to the Trump administration in abandoning some environmental justice metrics, which many fear means abandoning Black and brown communities to the whims of polluters. “It just appears to me that MDE blatantly does not want to be accountable in the massive pollution and the overburden of these heavy industrial industries,” Kamita Gray, a community leader in Brandywine—a majority-Black town that’s home to gas-fired power plants, a coal ash dump, and a Superfund site—told Maryland Matters.Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania too is under fire from climate critics. As attorney general, he authored a solid road map for protecting Pennsylvanians from the harmful environmental and health effects of fracking, but in his two years as governor he has allowed companies to be secretive about the chemicals used in fracking, and has not pushed to pass any laws curbing the industry. The Environmental Health Project, a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit, said “residents are still waiting for meaningful action. Our assessment concludes that the Shapiro administration has not fulfilled the commitments the governor made to Pennsylvanians in general and to frontline communities in particular.”And then there’s New York. Governor Kathy Hochul has been failing to follow the decarbonization timeline that was outlined in the state’s 2019 climate law, prompting environmental justice groups to sue her. She has delayed plans for “cap and invest” and is dragging her feet on building public renewables (despite the state’s landmark Build Public Renewables Act, which passed in 2023). She has seemingly caved to Trump by going ahead with gas pipelines she previously rejected. And it’s unclear whether she will sign a repeal of the outdated “100 foot rule,” which requires utility ratepayers to subsize the cost of connecting new customers to the gas system, a reform that has long been a priority of the state’s climate movement.Part of what’s so self-destructive here is that energy affordability is a highly salient issue for voters, taking center stage, for example in the governor’s race in New Jersey, where electricity rates have risen 22 percent. Interviewed in Friday’s New York Times on this subject, David Springe of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates described electricity as “the new eggs,” an indicator of how costly daily life is for most Americans. Republicans in New York have seized on the problem as an opportunity to blame Democrats and climate-friendly policies. Stephan Edel of New York Renews, a progressive coalition fighting for clean energy, told me the governor “has spoken really eloquently about the need to do something about affordability.” Indeed, she endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist, for New York City mayor, partly for this reason. She often uses “affordability” to justify rightward shifts or retreats from climate policy, he said, adding that, inexplicably, she also shies away from touting the affordability benefits of climate policies that she does support. For example, in the state budget last year, she agreed to invest over a billion dollars in funding for climate programs, including one that will help make homes for low-income New Yorkers more energy efficient and another that will save school districts money by shifting to electric school buses. Instead of touting those wins for affordability—or embracing the potential of publicly owned renewables to do the same—she’s embraced the Republican narrative that climate policy and affordability are at odds.By contrast, Mikie Sherill in New Jersey has been touting clean energy as a solution to energy affordability woes. If she gets elected and continues this path, more blue state governors should follow her lead. The Democratic base is desperate to see its leaders stand up to Trump on both climate and affordability. (And when Democratic governors do stand up to Trump on anything—Illinois’s JB Pritzker on the militarization of Chicago, Maine’s Janet Mills on health care—their poll numbers spike.)And the reverse is also true—failing to differentiate themselves from Trump has been political suicide for many Democrats. “Every time one of these elected officials says, ‘I’m going to stand up to Trump, I’m going to protect affordability, I’m going to address climate change,’ and then doesn’t do it,” that’s a win for the Republicans, Edel said, because it fuels low turnout for Democratic voters. Climate offers an obvious opportunity to isolate the Republicans on a matter of broad concern, renew Americans’ faith in government, and make real progress. The Democratic governors flailing so badly on this issue have not only a moral obligation to change course, but also a political one.

Nations Meet to Consider Regulations to Drive a Green Transition in Shipping

Maritime nations are meeting in London to discuss regulations that could shift the shipping industry away from fossil fuels

The world’s largest maritime nations are gathering in London on Tuesday to consider adopting regulations that would move the shipping industry away from fossil fuels to slash emissions.If the deal is adopted, this will be the first time a global fee is imposed on planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Most ships today run on heavy fuel oil that releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants as it’s burned. That would be a major win for the climate, public health, the ocean and marine life, said Delaine McCullough at the Ocean Conservancy. For too long, ships have run on crude, dirty oil, she said.“This agreement provides a lesson for the world that legally-binding climate action is possible," McCullough, shipping program director for the nonprofit environmental advocacy group, said. Shipping emissions have grown over the last decade to about 3% of the global total as trade has grown and vessels use immense amounts of fossil fuels to transport cargo over long distances. The regulations would set a pricing system for gas emissions The regulations, or “Net-zero Framework,” sets a marine fuel standard that decreases, over time, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed from using shipping fuels. The regulations also establish a pricing system that would impose fees for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above allowable limits, in what is effectively the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.There's a base-level of compliance for the allowable greenhouse gas intensity of fuels. There's a more stringent direct compliance target that requires further reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity.If ships sail on fuels with lower emissions than what's required under the direct compliance target, they earn “surplus units," effectively credits. Ships with the highest emissions would have to buy those credits from other ships under the pricing system, or from the IMO at $380 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach the base level of compliance. In addition, there's a penalty of $100 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach direct compliance. Ships that meet the base target but not the direct compliance one must pay the $100 per ton penalty, too. Ships whose greenhouse gas intensity is below a certain threshold will receive rewards for their performance.The fees could generate $11 billion to $13 billion in revenue annually. That would go into an IMO fund to invest in fuels and technologies needed to transition to green shipping, reward low-emission ships and support developing countries so they aren’t left behind with dirty fuels and old ships. Looking for alternative fuels Ships could lower their emissions by using alternative fuels, running on electricity or using onboard carbon capture technologies. Wind propulsion and other energy efficiency advancements can also help reduce fuel consumption and emissions as part of an energy transition. Large ships last about 25 years, so the industry would need to make changes and investments now to reach net-zero around 2050.If adopted, the regulations will enter into force in 2027. Large oceangoing ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total carbon emissions from international shipping, would have to pay penalties for their emissions starting in 2028, according to the IMO. The International Chamber of Shipping, which represents over 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, is advocating for adoption. Concerns over biofuels produced from food crops Heavy fuel oil, liquefied natural gas and biodiesel will be dominant for most of the 2030s and 2040s, unless the IMO further incentivizes green alternatives, according to modeling from Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based environmental nongovernmental organization. The way the rules are designed essentially make biofuels the cheapest fuel to use to comply, but biofuels require huge amounts of crops, pushing out less profitable food production, often leading to additional land clearance and deforestation, said Faig Abbasov, shipping director at T&E. They are urging the IMO to promote scalable green alternatives, not recklessly promote biofuels produced from food crops, Abbasov said. As it stands now, the deal before the IMO won't deliver net-zero emissions by 2050, he added.Green ammonia will get to a price that it’s appealing to ship owners in the late 2040s — quite late in the transition, according to the modeling. The NGO also sees green methanol playing an important role in the long-term transition. The vote at the London meeting The IMO aims for consensus in decision-making but it's likely nations will vote on adopting the regulations. At the April meeting, a vote was called to approve the contents of the regulations. The United States was notably absent in April, but plans to participate in this meeting. Teresa Bui at Pacific Environment said she's optimistic “global momentum is on our side” and a majority of countries will support adoption. Bui is senior climate campaign director for the environmental nonprofit, which has consultative, or non-voting, status at the IMO. If it fails, shipping’s decarbonization will be further delayed.“It's difficult to know for sure what the precise consequences will be, but failure this week will certainly lead to delay, which means ships will emit more greenhouse gases than they would have done and for longer, continuing their outsized contribution to the climate crisis,” said John Maggs, of the Clean Shipping Coalition, who is at the London meeting. 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 – Oct. 2025

For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project

The results challenge claims that the climate risks posed by an individual fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified.

Massimo Valicchia/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesGlobal warming from Woodside’s massive Scarborough gas project off Western Australia would lead to 484 additional heat-related deaths in Europe alone this century, and kill about 16 million additional corals on the Great Barrier Reef during each future mass bleaching event, our new research has revealed. The findings were made possible by a robust, well-established formula that can determine the extent to which an individual fossil fuel project will warm the planet. The results can be used to calculate the subsequent harms to society and nature. The results close a fundamental gap between science and decision-making about fossil fuel projects. They also challenge claims by proponents that climate risks posed by a fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified. Each new investment in coal and gas, such as the Scarborough project, can now be linked to harmful effects both today and in the future. It means decision-makers can properly assess the range of risks a project poses to humanity and the planet, before deciding if it should proceed. Each new investment in coal and gas extraction can now be linked to harmful effects. Shutterstock Every tonne of CO₂ matters Scientists know every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions makes global warming worse. But proponents of new fossil fuel projects in Australia routinely say their future greenhouse gas emissions are negligible compared to the scale of global emissions, or say the effects of these emissions on global warming can’t be measured. The Scarborough project is approved for development and is expected to produce gas from next year. Located off WA, it includes wells connected by a 430km pipeline to an onshore processing facility. The gas will be liquefied and burned for energy, both in Australia and overseas. Production is expected to last more than 30 years. When natural gas is burned, more than 99% of it converts to CO₂. Woodside – in its own evaluation of the Scarborough gas project – claimed: it is not possible to link GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from Scarborough with climate change or any particular climate-related impacts given the estimated […] emissions associated with Scarborough are negligible in the context of existing and future predicted global GHG concentrations. But what if there was a way to measure the harms? That’s the question our research set out to answer. A method already exists to directly link global emissions to the climate warming they cause. It uses scientific understanding of Earth’s systems, direct observations and climate model simulations. According to the IPCC, every 1,000 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions causes about 0.45°C of additional global warming. This arithmetic forms the basis for calculating how much more CO₂ humanity can emit to keep warming within the Paris Agreement goals. But decisions about future emissions are not made at the global scale. Instead, Earth’s climate trajectory will be determined by the aggregation of decisions on many individual projects. That’s why our research extended the IPCC method to the level of individual projects – an approach that we illustrate using the Scarborough gas project. Scarborough’s harms laid bare Over its lifetime, the Scarborough project is expected to emit 876 million tonnes of CO₂. We estimate these emissions will cause 0.00039°C of additional global warming. Estimates such as these are typically expressed as a range, alongside a measure of confidence in the projection. In this case, there is a 66–100% likelihood that the Scarborough project will cause additional global warming of between 0.00024°C and 0.00055°C. This additional warming might seem small – but it will cause tangible damage. The human cost of global warming can be quantified by considering how many people will be left outside the “human climate niche” – in other words, the climate conditions in which societies have historically thrived. We calculated that the additional warming from the Scarborough project will expose 516,000 people globally to a local climate that’s beyond the hot extreme of the human climate niche. We drilled down into specific impacts in Europe, where suitable health data was available across 854 cities. Our best estimate is that this project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. The project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. Antonio Masiello/Getty Images And what about harm to nature? Using research into how accumulated exposure to heat affects coral reefs, we found about 16 million corals on the Great Barrier Reef would be lost in each new mass bleaching. The existential threat to the Great Barrier Reef from human-caused global warming is already being realised. Additional warming instigated by new fossil fuel projects will ratchet up pressure on this natural wonder. As climate change worsens, countries are seeking to slash emissions to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement. So, we looked at the impact of Scarborough’s emissions on Australia’s climate targets. We calculated that by 2049, the anticipated emissions from the Scarborough project alone – from production, processing and domestic use – will comprise 49% of Australia’s entire annual CO₂ emissions budget under our commitment to net-zero by 2050. Beyond the 2050 deadline, all emissions from the Scarborough project would require technologies to permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Achieving that would require a massive scale-up of current technologies. It would be more prudent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions where possible. ‘Negligible’ impacts? Hardly Our findings mean the best-available scientific evidence can now be used by companies, governments and regulators when deciding if a fossil fuel project will proceed. Crucially, it is no longer defensible for companies proposing new or extended fossil fuel projects to claim the climate harms will be negligible. Our research shows the harms are, in fact, tangible and quantifiable – and no project is too small to matter. In response to issues raised in this article, a spokesperson for Woodside said: Woodside is committed to playing a role in the energy transition. The Scarborough reservoir contains less than 0.1% carbon dioxide. Combined with processing design efficiencies at the offshore floating production unit and onshore Pluto Train 2, the project is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets. We will reduce the Scarborough Energy Project’s direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations. Further information on how this is being achieved is included in the Scarborough Offshore Project Proposal, sections 4.5.4.1 and 7.1.3 and in approved Australian Government environment plans, available on the regulator’s website. A report prepared by consultancy ACIL Allen has found that Woodside’s Scarborough Energy Project is expected to generate an estimated A$52.8 billion in taxation and royalty payments, boost GDP by billions of dollars between 2024 and 2056 and employ 3,200 people during peak construction in Western Australia. Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research CouncilAndrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship and Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather) and the National Environmental Science Program. Nicola Maher receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

Emissions linked to Woodside’s Scarborough gas project could lead to at least 480 deaths, research suggests

Scientists have examined the $16.5bn project’s climate impact and found it could expose more than half a million people to unprecedented heatSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGreenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades. Continue reading...

Greenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades.Emissions from the project would contribute 0.00039C to global heating, they estimate. Using recently developed techniques known as climate attribution, they suggest that fraction of warming would expose an additional 516,000 people globally to unprecedented heat, and result in the loss of an extra 16m coral colonies in the Great Barrier Reef in every future bleaching event.It would also push 356,000 people outside the “human climate niche” – the reasonable zone for human survival, with an upper limit for average annual temperature of 29C.The study, published in the journal Climate Action, forms part of a new focus in climate science that aims to quantify the impacts of individual fossil fuel projects and emitters.A Woodside spokesperson said the company would reduce the Scarborough project’s “direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations”.“Climate change is caused by the net global concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” they added. “It cannot be attributed to any one event, country, industry or activity.” Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterBut study co-author Andrew King, an associate professor in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said the research illustrated that individual projects had tangible climate impacts.“Often the argument made for individual projects that would involve greenhouse gas emissions is that they are quite small [in the global context],” he said. “But really, especially with larger fossil fuel projects, we can very clearly say that the impacts are not negligible.”Study co-author Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a professor of climate science at the Australian National University, said that given Australia’s emission reductions requirements, in the coming decades Scarborough would also constitute a greater proportion of the country’s CO2 emissions budget.“By 2049, assuming that the Scarborough project emits the same amount year on year, it’s going to be chewing up half of our emissions budget,” Perkins-Kirkpatrick said. “That’s the stuff that we burn here, let alone what we export overseas.”Beyond 2050, emissions from Scarborough would require CO2 removal from the atmosphere – “technologies that either don’t exist yet, or that we can’t scale up”, she said.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionUnder a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, warming contributed by Scarborough would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe alone by the end of the century, the researchers calculated. Taking into account a reduction in cold-related deaths in Europe, they estimate a net contribution of 118 additional deaths.The researchers calculated the project’s climate impacts with a tool used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called the Transient Climate Response to CO2 Emissions (TCRE). The TCRE estimates that every 1,000 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions causes 0.45C of additional global heating.Scarborough’s contribution to global heating had a likely range between 0.00024C and 0.00055C, the study’s authors estimated, but they noted “direct measurement of global mean temperature changes is not possible with this level of precision”.The approach could be used by governments and companies to assess whether future “projects fall within acceptable levels of environmental and societal risk”, the researchers suggest. The tool “could be part of the process for determining whether a project should be approved”, King said.Yuming Guo, a professor of global environmental health and biostatistics at Monash University, who was not involved in the study, said the study provided “a valuable tool for conducting environmental risk assessments”.“Considering the vast number of fossil fuel projects operating globally, the cumulative contribution of these emissions to climate change is substantial and should not be overlooked,” he said.Dr Kat O’Mara, a senior lecturer in environmental management and sustainability at Edith Cowan University, who was not part of the study, said: “With the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion a few months ago that countries need to take action to protect the climate, this new research reinforces the need to consider climate impacts beyond just how much carbon is being produced.”

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.