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.

More extreme heat + more people = danger in these California cities. ‘Will it get as hot as Death Valley?’

News Feed
Thursday, September 5, 2024

In summary Inland communities with big population booms will experience the most extreme heat days under climate change projections. The combination puts more people at risk — and many cities are unprepared. On a recent sunny afternoon in Lancaster, Cassandra Hughes looked for a place to cool down. She set up a lawn chair in the shade at the edge of a park and spent the afternoon with a coloring book, listening to hip-hop music.  Reaching a high of 97 degrees, this August day was pleasant by Lancaster standards — a breeze offered temporary relief. But just the week before, during a brutal heat wave, the high hit 109. For Hughes, the Mojave Desert city has been a dramatic change from the mild weather in El Segundo, the coastal city where she lived before moving in April.  Hughes, a retired nurse, is among the Californians who are moving inland in search of affordable housing and more space. But it comes at a price: dangerous heat driven by climate change, accompanied by sky-high electric bills. A CalMatters analysis shows that many California cities with the biggest recent population booms are the same places that will experience the most high heat days — a potentially deadly confluence. The combination of a growing population and rising extreme heat will put more people at risk of illnesses and pose a challenge for unprepared local officials. As greenhouse gasses warm the planet, more people around the globe are experiencing intensifying heat waves and higher temperatures. An international panel of climate scientists recently reported that it is “virtually certain” that “there has been increases in the intensity and duration of heatwaves and in the number of heatwave days at the global scale.”  CalMatters identified the California communities most at risk — the top 1% of the state’s more than 8,000 census tracts that have grown by more than 500 people in recent years and are expected to experience the most intensifying heat under climate change projections. The results: Lancaster and Palmdale in Los Angeles County; Apple Valley, Victorville and Hesperia in San Bernardino County; Lake Elsinore and Murrieta in Riverside County; and the Central Valley cities of Visalia, Fresno, Clovis and Tulare. By 2050, neighborhoods in those 11 inland cities are expected to experience 25 or more high heat days every year, according to data from researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Colorado Boulder and UC Berkeley. A high heat day is when an area’s maximum temperature exceeds the top 2% of its historic high — in other words, temperatures that soar above some of the highest levels ever recorded there this century. (The projections were based on an intermediate scenario for future planet-warming emissions.) Many of these places facing this dangerous combination of worsening heat waves and growing populations are low-income, Latino communities. “We are seeing much more rapid warming of inland areas that were already hotter to begin with,” said UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain.  “There’s an extreme contrast between the people who live within 5 to 10 miles of the beach and people who live as little as 20 miles inland,” he said. “It’s these inland areas where we see people who…are killed by this extreme heat or whose lives are at least made miserable.”  While temperatures are projected to rise across the state, neighborhoods along the coast will remain much more temperate. San Francisco, Santa Barbara and Long Beach, for instance, are not projected to experience significantly more high heat days. San Francisco will average six days a year in the 2050s exceeding 87 degrees, compared to four days in the 2020s. In contrast, Visalia will jump from 17 days exceeding 103 degrees to 32 — more than a full month. Unlike the growing inland populations, the cooler coastal counties, — where more than two-thirds of Californians now live — are expected to lose about 1.3 million residents by 2050, according to the California Department of Finance.  High temperatures can be deadly, triggering heat strokes and heart attacks, and exacerbating asthma, diabetes, kidney failure and other illnesses, even some infectious diseases. Cassandra Hughes sits in the shade in Lancaster on Aug. 15, 2024. The temperature that day reached 97 degrees — cooler than recent heat waves. She strategically cools her home to keep electric bills low.  “I have air conditioning, a swamp cooler and two fans,” she said. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters In California, extreme heat contributed to more than 5,000 hospitalizations and almost 10,600 emergency department visits over the past decade — and the health effects “fall disproportionately on already overburdened” Black people, Latinos and Native Americans, according to a recent state report. City and county officials must grapple with how to protect residents who already are struggling to stay cool and pay their electric bills. Despite the warnings, many local governments have failed to respond.  A 2015 state law required municipalities to update their general plans, safety plans or hazard mitigation plans to include steps countering the effects of climate change, such as cooling roofs and pavement or urban greening projects. But only about half of California’s 540 cities and counties had complied with new plans as of last year, according to the environmental nonprofit Climate Resolve.  The California dream or a hellish reality?  An exodus from California’s coastal regions is a decades-long trend, said Eric McGhee, a policy director who researches California demographic changes at the Public Policy Institute of California. People are moving away from the coasts, especially the Los Angeles region and Bay Area, to elsewhere in California and other states.  About 104,000 people moved from the Bay Area to the Sacramento area, the Inland Empire and the San Joaquin Valley in 2021 and 2022, and about 95,000 moved from Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange County to those same inland regions, according to data collected from the Census. McGhee said most people moving inland are low-income and middle-income Californians looking to expand their families, find cheaper housing and live comfortably — and they’re willing to sacrifice other privileges, like cool weather. California is “becoming more expensive, more exclusive in the places that are least likely to experience extreme heat,” Swain said. As a result, he said, “the people who are most at risk of extreme heat” — those with limited financial resources — “are precisely the people experiencing extreme heat.” The San Bernardino County city of Victorville — which is 55% Hispanic and has median incomes far below the state average — is among California’s fastest growing areas, adding more than 12,500 new residents between 2018 and 2022. Nearby Apple Valley and Hesperia grew by about 3,000 and 6,000 people, respectively, while Lancaster, Palmdale and Visalia added between about 10,000 and 12,000.   In Victorville on an August day that reached 97 degrees, Eduardo Ceja wiped sweat from his forehead as he worked at Superior Grocers store, retrieving shopping carts.  The work is often grueling in this Mojave Desert town. He sometimes drinks five bottles of water to stay hydrated as he works, with the concrete parking lot radiating the heat back onto his skin. When he’s done pushing carts, he recovers in the air conditioned store.  The extreme heat “is noticeable. I don’t think there was a day under 100 in July.”Scott Nassif, apple valley mayor Ceja, 20, moved to nearby Apple Valley about a year ago, around the same time the new grocery store opened. He used to sleep on his parents’ couch in the San Gabriel Valley town of Covina, east of Los Angeles, which is often more than 10 degrees cooler than Apple Valley on summer days. But he wanted a place to himself at a low cost, so now he pays $400 a month for a bedroom in his brother’s home.  Since he moved here, he’s observed many businesses, including his own employer, expand or open in Apple Valley. “I notice a lot of people from L.A. are coming here,” he said. It makes sense to him. “Out here, the apartments have more space.” Apple Valley Mayor Scott Nassif, who has lived there since 1959, said days over 100 degrees used to be rare. Now week-long heat waves above 110 degrees are commonplace. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters Apple Valley Mayor Scott Nassif has seen his desert town grow and get hotter over his lifetime. When he moved to the area in 1959, only a few thousand people lived there. Now it’s home to more than 75,000 people.  Nassif remembers only a few days that would reach above 100 degrees and multiple snowstorms in the winter. Now, snowstorms are rare, and week-long heat waves above 110 degrees are commonplace.    The extreme heat “is noticeable,” he said. “I don’t think there was a day under 100 in July.”  Nassif attributes the town’s growing population to its good schools, a semi-rural lifestyle and affordable housing for families.  In the high desert town of Hesperia, growth is evident. Banners advertising “New homes!” are posted throughout the town, luring potential buyers to tract home communities. Residents are cautiously eyeing a new development, called the Silverwood Community, that has recently broken ground. The massive, 9,000-plus acre development is authorized for more than 15,000 new homes, according to its website. A video on its website coaxes potential buyers: “True believers know the California dream is within reach.” An aerial view of the Silverwood Community, a housing development under construction in Hesperia, on Aug. 16, 2024. The development could include as many as 15,000 new homes to the desert city, which currently is home to about 100,000 people. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters Hesperia, which is almost two-thirds Hispanic and also has median incomes far below the state average, is anticipating continued growth as housing costs soar in other parts of California. Its planning includes rezoning some areas to allow for higher-density housing, which could bring more affordable housing, said Ryan Leonard, Hesperia’s principal planner.  “If people are willing to make a commute to San Bernardino, Riverside or Ontario — a 45-minute to an hour commute — they can afford to buy a home here when they might not be able to afford that same home down the hill,” Leonard said. Summer electric bills soar to $500 or more In the California towns at most risk of intensifying heat, people already are saddled with big power bills because of their reliance on air conditioning. For instance, households in Lancaster, Palmdale and Apple Valley pay on average $200 to $259 a month for electricity, compared to a $177 average in Southern California Edison’s service area, according to California Public Utilities Commission data as of May, 2023. In summer months, average power use in these communities nearly triples compared to spring months, so some people’s bills can climb above $500. And their bills are likely to grow as climate change intensifies heat waves and utility rates rise: Californians are paying about twice as much for electricity than a decade ago. The state’s rates are among the highest in the nation.  “You can’t not run the air conditioner all day… You wouldn’t survive otherwise. The heat is too oppressive.”Diane Carlson, palmdale resident Diane Carlson moved to Palmdale, north of Los Angeles, 30 years ago. The housing was much cheaper and she wanted to move where her children could attend school near where they live.  Over the years, she’s felt the temperatures in Palmdale rise.  Carlson said her electric bill during the summers used to average about $500, a significant chunk of her household budget. About four years ago, though, she had solar panels installed on their home, which cut her bill in half.   “You can’t not run the air conditioner all day, even if you run it low,” she said. “You wouldn’t survive otherwise. The heat is too oppressive.”  With multiple days in the summer reaching at least 115 degrees, Carlson is conscious that there may be a future where Palmdale isn’t livable for her anymore. “Will it get as hot as Death Valley?” she wondered.  Death Valley, the hottest place on Earth, reached record temperatures in July, averaging 108.5 degrees; the high was 121.9, tying a 1917 record.  In comparison, Palmdale by 2050 is projected to have 25 days where the maximum temperature exceeds 105, up from nine days in the 2010s. Carlson said she’d consider moving to the East Coast, where she’s originally from. But she’d face hurricanes rather than the heat. It all comes down to making a decision: “Which negatives are you willing to deal with?”  A street vendor sells fans and mini pools in the Los Angeles County desert town of Lancaster on Aug. 15, 2024. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters First: An infrared thermometer In Lancaster shows the  street surface temperature reached 137 degrees on Aug. 15, 2024. Last: A wire sculpture on a light pole as the hot desert sun shines. Photos by Ted Soqui for CalMatters Hughes, who lives in subsidized housing in Lancaster, said surviving the heat means constantly checking the weather forecast and strategically cooling her home to keep electricity costs low.  “I have air conditioning, a swamp cooler and two fans,” she said.  On a day when the temperature doesn’t reach triple digits, the air conditioner might stay off; she opens the windows and turns on the fans instead.  Local leaders say they know more must be done to protect their residents. Lancaster opens cooling centers in libraries for residents who need respite from the heat. During heat waves, residents ride buses for free, and city programs provide water and other resources to homeless people.  “Is it adequate? Of course it’s not adequate,” said Mayor R. Rex Parris. “If you’ve got people who don’t read or don’t get a newspaper sitting in a sweltering apartment, the information is not getting to them and we know it.”  Parris said air conditioning is necessary for families to stay cool in the hot desert summers, but with utility costs so high, it’s becoming a luxury. With that in mind, he said the city is prioritizing hydrogen energy, which could lower electric bills in the long-term. A new housing tract will be powered by solar panels and batteries that store power, backed up by hydrogen fuel cells, which will be cheaper than if the homes drew energy entirely from the grid, said Jason Caudl, head of Lancaster Energy.   Nassif, the Apple Valley mayor, said his town helps residents finance costly rooftop solar panels that can cut their power bills.  “Educating our public on how to save on their electric bills is a big thing, because you can’t live up here without air conditioning,” Nassif said.  Cooling centers aren’t enough to protect people On a Saturday morning in Visalia, as temperatures climbed to 99 degrees, Maribel Jimenez brought her 2-year-old son to an indoor playground to beat the heat. She sat at a kid-sized table with her son, Mateo, as he played with toy screws and blocks.  Jimenez, 33, has lived in Visalia her whole life. She grew up on a dairy farm and remembers playing outdoors for hours in the summers. But things have changed. She can’t imagine letting her son play outdoors under the scorching sun. She worries he’s not getting the outdoor playtime he should be getting.   “It’s definitely gotten much hotter,” Jimenez said. “You can’t even have your kids outside. We want to take him out to the playground but it’s too hot. By the time it cools down in the evening, it’s his bedtime.”  Other times, she and her family go to the mall for walks, or anywhere where there’s air conditioning.  “As long as he’s out, he’s happy,” she said. “We try our best to protect him.”   Maribel Jimenez and Oscar Olmedo play with their son Mateo in the shade at the ImagineU Children’s Museum in Visalia on Aug. 17, 2024. They say they have trouble finding places where their son can cool off on hot summer days. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local The effects of extreme heat on the body can happen quickly and can affect people of all ages and health conditions. Once symptoms of heat stroke begin — increased heart rate and a change in mental status — cooling off within 30 minutes is crucial to survival, said Tomás Aragón, director of the California Department of Public Health Many municipalities react to extreme heat by following state or county rules, which often involve opening cooling centers in public places when temperatures rise above a certain level for multiple days in a row.  “You want people to be in a space where your body can control its core temperature,” Aragón said. “It’s safer to be in an air conditioned place (that) cools your body down. That’s what cooling centers are for. I tell people, go to the supermarket, go to the library, go to a cooling center, go and just let your body cool down.” “It’s not just about preventing deaths and other terrible outcomes of heat waves … It’s really about having livable communities where kids can play outside and street vendors can run their businesses without risk of overexposure.” Ali Frazzini, los angeles county’s Chief Sustainability office But community advocates say cooling centers are ineffective because they’re underused. Many people are unaware of them, and others have no transportation to reach them. “I think everyone is used to that being the answer for what we do when it gets extremely hot,” said Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of Climate Resolve. “We need to expand our imagination to figure out other ways of taking care of people.” Victorville has complied with the 2015 state law requiring plans to handle climate change, and Hesperia is in the process of updating its plans.  But Los Angeles County is an example of a local government that has gone above and beyond to comply, Parfrey said. The county has updated its emergency preparedness plans and is in the early phases of developing a heat-specific plan for unincorporated areas, which will include urban greening and changes to the built environment to make neighborhoods cooler, said Ali Frazzini, policy director at the county’s Chief Sustainability office. Families play in the water park area of Adventure Park to cool off in Visalia on Aug. 17, 2024. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local “It’s not just about preventing deaths and other terrible outcomes of heat waves, although that’s extremely important,” Frazzini said. “It’s really about having livable communities where kids can play outside and street vendors can run their businesses without risk of overexposure.”  Parfrey said the state plays a role, but “they’re not in charge of the roads or building codes or where you put a water fountain or how you build a local park. All of that has to be done at a local level.” In 2022, the Newsom administration issued an Extreme Heat Action Plan outlining state steps to make California more resilient to extreme heat. That includes funding new community resilience centers where people can cool down as well as find resources or shelter during other emergencies, such as wildfires. It’s a model that some community advocates prefer over traditional cooling centers that are underutilized. The state has granted almost $98 million for 24 projects so far, said Anna Jane Jones, who leads development of the centers for the state’s Strategic Growth Council.   “It’s definitely gotten much hotter. You can’t even have your kids outside. We want to take him out to the playground but it’s too hot.”Maribel Jimenez, Visalia resident In Visalia, Jimenez said her family doesn’t have many options for cool spaces where her young son can be entertained. At home, the family uses the air conditioner sparingly and keeps the blinds closed. During a heat wave, their power bill can climb to $250. If the bills were lower, she’d use the air conditioner all the time “We have to do what we have to do,” she said.  Jimenez and her husband have thought twice about expanding their family and have floated the idea of moving somewhere else, but many of the affordable options, like Texas or Arizona, are even hotter than Visalia.  “Global warming is a thing, and the heat isn’t getting any better anytime soon,” she said. “Everybody’s paying the price.”

Inland communities with big population booms will experience the most extreme heat days under climate change projections. The combination puts more people at risk — and many cities are unprepared.

A person with pants, but no shirt, fills their water bottle during a hot day at a water station at a tennis court.

In summary

Inland communities with big population booms will experience the most extreme heat days under climate change projections. The combination puts more people at risk — and many cities are unprepared.

On a recent sunny afternoon in Lancaster, Cassandra Hughes looked for a place to cool down. She set up a lawn chair in the shade at the edge of a park and spent the afternoon with a coloring book, listening to hip-hop music. 

Reaching a high of 97 degrees, this August day was pleasant by Lancaster standards — a breeze offered temporary relief. But just the week before, during a brutal heat wave, the high hit 109. For Hughes, the Mojave Desert city has been a dramatic change from the mild weather in El Segundo, the coastal city where she lived before moving in April. 

Hughes, a retired nurse, is among the Californians who are moving inland in search of affordable housing and more space. But it comes at a price: dangerous heat driven by climate change, accompanied by sky-high electric bills.

A CalMatters analysis shows that many California cities with the biggest recent population booms are the same places that will experience the most high heat days — a potentially deadly confluence. The combination of a growing population and rising extreme heat will put more people at risk of illnesses and pose a challenge for unprepared local officials.

As greenhouse gasses warm the planet, more people around the globe are experiencing intensifying heat waves and higher temperatures. An international panel of climate scientists recently reported that it is “virtually certain” that “there has been increases in the intensity and duration of heatwaves and in the number of heatwave days at the global scale.” 

CalMatters identified the California communities most at risk — the top 1% of the state’s more than 8,000 census tracts that have grown by more than 500 people in recent years and are expected to experience the most intensifying heat under climate change projections.

The results: Lancaster and Palmdale in Los Angeles County; Apple Valley, Victorville and Hesperia in San Bernardino County; Lake Elsinore and Murrieta in Riverside County; and the Central Valley cities of Visalia, Fresno, Clovis and Tulare.

By 2050, neighborhoods in those 11 inland cities are expected to experience 25 or more high heat days every year, according to data from researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Colorado Boulder and UC Berkeley. A high heat day is when an area’s maximum temperature exceeds the top 2% of its historic high — in other words, temperatures that soar above some of the highest levels ever recorded there this century. (The projections were based on an intermediate scenario for future planet-warming emissions.)

Many of these places facing this dangerous combination of worsening heat waves and growing populations are low-income, Latino communities.

“We are seeing much more rapid warming of inland areas that were already hotter to begin with,” said UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain. 

“There’s an extreme contrast between the people who live within 5 to 10 miles of the beach and people who live as little as 20 miles inland,” he said. “It’s these inland areas where we see people who…are killed by this extreme heat or whose lives are at least made miserable.” 

While temperatures are projected to rise across the state, neighborhoods along the coast will remain much more temperate.

San Francisco, Santa Barbara and Long Beach, for instance, are not projected to experience significantly more high heat days.

San Francisco will average six days a year in the 2050s exceeding 87 degrees, compared to four days in the 2020s. In contrast, Visalia will jump from 17 days exceeding 103 degrees to 32 — more than a full month.

Unlike the growing inland populations, the cooler coastal counties, — where more than two-thirds of Californians now live — are expected to lose about 1.3 million residents by 2050, according to the California Department of Finance. 

High temperatures can be deadly, triggering heat strokes and heart attacks, and exacerbating asthma, diabetes, kidney failure and other illnesses, even some infectious diseases.

A person wearing a pink shirt, black pants and sandals sits in a folding chair on a sidewalk while writing in a notebook.
Cassandra Hughes sits in the shade in Lancaster on Aug. 15, 2024. The temperature that day reached 97 degrees — cooler than recent heat waves. She strategically cools her home to keep electric bills low.  “I have air conditioning, a swamp cooler and two fans,” she said. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters

In California, extreme heat contributed to more than 5,000 hospitalizations and almost 10,600 emergency department visits over the past decade — and the health effects “fall disproportionately on already overburdened” Black people, Latinos and Native Americans, according to a recent state report.

City and county officials must grapple with how to protect residents who already are struggling to stay cool and pay their electric bills. Despite the warnings, many local governments have failed to respond. 

A 2015 state law required municipalities to update their general plans, safety plans or hazard mitigation plans to include steps countering the effects of climate change, such as cooling roofs and pavement or urban greening projects.

But only about half of California’s 540 cities and counties had complied with new plans as of last year, according to the environmental nonprofit Climate Resolve

The California dream or a hellish reality? 

An exodus from California’s coastal regions is a decades-long trend, said Eric McGhee, a policy director who researches California demographic changes at the Public Policy Institute of California. People are moving away from the coasts, especially the Los Angeles region and Bay Area, to elsewhere in California and other states. 

About 104,000 people moved from the Bay Area to the Sacramento area, the Inland Empire and the San Joaquin Valley in 2021 and 2022, and about 95,000 moved from Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange County to those same inland regions, according to data collected from the Census.

McGhee said most people moving inland are low-income and middle-income Californians looking to expand their families, find cheaper housing and live comfortably — and they’re willing to sacrifice other privileges, like cool weather.

California is “becoming more expensive, more exclusive in the places that are least likely to experience extreme heat,” Swain said. As a result, he said, “the people who are most at risk of extreme heat” — those with limited financial resources — “are precisely the people experiencing extreme heat.”

Table of California counties by number of historical and projected high heat days and population change by 2050

The San Bernardino County city of Victorville — which is 55% Hispanic and has median incomes far below the state average — is among California’s fastest growing areas, adding more than 12,500 new residents between 2018 and 2022. Nearby Apple Valley and Hesperia grew by about 3,000 and 6,000 people, respectively, while Lancaster, Palmdale and Visalia added between about 10,000 and 12,000.  

In Victorville on an August day that reached 97 degrees, Eduardo Ceja wiped sweat from his forehead as he worked at Superior Grocers store, retrieving shopping carts. 

The work is often grueling in this Mojave Desert town. He sometimes drinks five bottles of water to stay hydrated as he works, with the concrete parking lot radiating the heat back onto his skin. When he’s done pushing carts, he recovers in the air conditioned store. 

The extreme heat “is noticeable. I don’t think there was a day under 100 in July.”

Scott Nassif, apple valley mayor

Ceja, 20, moved to nearby Apple Valley about a year ago, around the same time the new grocery store opened. He used to sleep on his parents’ couch in the San Gabriel Valley town of Covina, east of Los Angeles, which is often more than 10 degrees cooler than Apple Valley on summer days. But he wanted a place to himself at a low cost, so now he pays $400 a month for a bedroom in his brother’s home. 

Since he moved here, he’s observed many businesses, including his own employer, expand or open in Apple Valley.

“I notice a lot of people from L.A. are coming here,” he said. It makes sense to him. “Out here, the apartments have more space.”

A person wearing glasses, a black polo shirt and grey pants stands under a palo verde tree outside of a building during a sunny day.
Apple Valley Mayor Scott Nassif, who has lived there since 1959, said days over 100 degrees used to be rare. Now week-long heat waves above 110 degrees are commonplace. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters

Apple Valley Mayor Scott Nassif has seen his desert town grow and get hotter over his lifetime. When he moved to the area in 1959, only a few thousand people lived there. Now it’s home to more than 75,000 people. 

Nassif remembers only a few days that would reach above 100 degrees and multiple snowstorms in the winter. Now, snowstorms are rare, and week-long heat waves above 110 degrees are commonplace.   

The extreme heat “is noticeable,” he said. “I don’t think there was a day under 100 in July.” 

Nassif attributes the town’s growing population to its good schools, a semi-rural lifestyle and affordable housing for families. 

In the high desert town of Hesperia, growth is evident. Banners advertising “New homes!” are posted throughout the town, luring potential buyers to tract home communities. Residents are cautiously eyeing a new development, called the Silverwood Community, that has recently broken ground.

The massive, 9,000-plus acre development is authorized for more than 15,000 new homes, according to its website. A video on its website coaxes potential buyers: “True believers know the California dream is within reach.”

An aerial view of a giant dirt lot under construction that will soon be a community development.
An aerial view of the Silverwood Community, a housing development under construction in Hesperia, on Aug. 16, 2024. The development could include as many as 15,000 new homes to the desert city, which currently is home to about 100,000 people. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters

Hesperia, which is almost two-thirds Hispanic and also has median incomes far below the state average, is anticipating continued growth as housing costs soar in other parts of California. Its planning includes rezoning some areas to allow for higher-density housing, which could bring more affordable housing, said Ryan Leonard, Hesperia’s principal planner. 

“If people are willing to make a commute to San Bernardino, Riverside or Ontario — a 45-minute to an hour commute — they can afford to buy a home here when they might not be able to afford that same home down the hill,” Leonard said.

Summer electric bills soar to $500 or more

In the California towns at most risk of intensifying heat, people already are saddled with big power bills because of their reliance on air conditioning.

For instance, households in Lancaster, Palmdale and Apple Valley pay on average $200 to $259 a month for electricity, compared to a $177 average in Southern California Edison’s service area, according to California Public Utilities Commission data as of May, 2023.

In summer months, average power use in these communities nearly triples compared to spring months, so some people’s bills can climb above $500.

And their bills are likely to grow as climate change intensifies heat waves and utility rates rise: Californians are paying about twice as much for electricity than a decade ago. The state’s rates are among the highest in the nation

“You can’t not run the air conditioner all day… You wouldn’t survive otherwise. The heat is too oppressive.”

Diane Carlson, palmdale resident

Diane Carlson moved to Palmdale, north of Los Angeles, 30 years ago. The housing was much cheaper and she wanted to move where her children could attend school near where they live. 

Over the years, she’s felt the temperatures in Palmdale rise. 

Carlson said her electric bill during the summers used to average about $500, a significant chunk of her household budget. About four years ago, though, she had solar panels installed on their home, which cut her bill in half.  

“You can’t not run the air conditioner all day, even if you run it low,” she said. “You wouldn’t survive otherwise. The heat is too oppressive.” 

With multiple days in the summer reaching at least 115 degrees, Carlson is conscious that there may be a future where Palmdale isn’t livable for her anymore.

“Will it get as hot as Death Valley?” she wondered. 

Death Valley, the hottest place on Earth, reached record temperatures in July, averaging 108.5 degrees; the high was 121.9, tying a 1917 record.  In comparison, Palmdale by 2050 is projected to have 25 days where the maximum temperature exceeds 105, up from nine days in the 2010s.

Carlson said she’d consider moving to the East Coast, where she’s originally from. But she’d face hurricanes rather than the heat. It all comes down to making a decision: “Which negatives are you willing to deal with?” 

A street vendor sells fans, mini pools and other products outside a white and red two-story house as a man in a bicycle passes by.
A street vendor sells fans and mini pools in the Los Angeles County desert town of Lancaster on Aug. 15, 2024. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters

Hughes, who lives in subsidized housing in Lancaster, said surviving the heat means constantly checking the weather forecast and strategically cooling her home to keep electricity costs low.  “I have air conditioning, a swamp cooler and two fans,” she said. 

On a day when the temperature doesn’t reach triple digits, the air conditioner might stay off; she opens the windows and turns on the fans instead. 

Local leaders say they know more must be done to protect their residents.

Lancaster opens cooling centers in libraries for residents who need respite from the heat. During heat waves, residents ride buses for free, and city programs provide water and other resources to homeless people. 

“Is it adequate? Of course it’s not adequate,” said Mayor R. Rex Parris. “If you’ve got people who don’t read or don’t get a newspaper sitting in a sweltering apartment, the information is not getting to them and we know it.” 

Parris said air conditioning is necessary for families to stay cool in the hot desert summers, but with utility costs so high, it’s becoming a luxury.

With that in mind, he said the city is prioritizing hydrogen energy, which could lower electric bills in the long-term. A new housing tract will be powered by solar panels and batteries that store power, backed up by hydrogen fuel cells, which will be cheaper than if the homes drew energy entirely from the grid, said Jason Caudl, head of Lancaster Energy.  

Nassif, the Apple Valley mayor, said his town helps residents finance costly rooftop solar panels that can cut their power bills. 

“Educating our public on how to save on their electric bills is a big thing, because you can’t live up here without air conditioning,” Nassif said. 

Cooling centers aren’t enough to protect people

On a Saturday morning in Visalia, as temperatures climbed to 99 degrees, Maribel Jimenez brought her 2-year-old son to an indoor playground to beat the heat. She sat at a kid-sized table with her son, Mateo, as he played with toy screws and blocks. 

Jimenez, 33, has lived in Visalia her whole life. She grew up on a dairy farm and remembers playing outdoors for hours in the summers. But things have changed. She can’t imagine letting her son play outdoors under the scorching sun. She worries he’s not getting the outdoor playtime he should be getting.  

“It’s definitely gotten much hotter,” Jimenez said. “You can’t even have your kids outside. We want to take him out to the playground but it’s too hot. By the time it cools down in the evening, it’s his bedtime.” 

Other times, she and her family go to the mall for walks, or anywhere where there’s air conditioning. 

“As long as he’s out, he’s happy,” she said. “We try our best to protect him.”  

A child, on the left side of the frame, places a toy fishing hook in to a small water well with other toys floating around, as his mother and father play next to him.
Maribel Jimenez and Oscar Olmedo play with their son Mateo in the shade at the ImagineU Children’s Museum in Visalia on Aug. 17, 2024. They say they have trouble finding places where their son can cool off on hot summer days. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

The effects of extreme heat on the body can happen quickly and can affect people of all ages and health conditions. Once symptoms of heat stroke begin — increased heart rate and a change in mental status — cooling off within 30 minutes is crucial to survival, said Tomás Aragón, director of the California Department of Public Health

Many municipalities react to extreme heat by following state or county rules, which often involve opening cooling centers in public places when temperatures rise above a certain level for multiple days in a row. 

“You want people to be in a space where your body can control its core temperature,” Aragón said. “It’s safer to be in an air conditioned place (that) cools your body down. That’s what cooling centers are for. I tell people, go to the supermarket, go to the library, go to a cooling center, go and just let your body cool down.”

“It’s not just about preventing deaths and other terrible outcomes of heat waves … It’s really about having livable communities where kids can play outside and street vendors can run their businesses without risk of overexposure.” 

Ali Frazzini, los angeles county’s Chief Sustainability office

But community advocates say cooling centers are ineffective because they’re underused. Many people are unaware of them, and others have no transportation to reach them.

“I think everyone is used to that being the answer for what we do when it gets extremely hot,” said Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of Climate Resolve. “We need to expand our imagination to figure out other ways of taking care of people.”

Victorville has complied with the 2015 state law requiring plans to handle climate change, and Hesperia is in the process of updating its plans. 

But Los Angeles County is an example of a local government that has gone above and beyond to comply, Parfrey said.

The county has updated its emergency preparedness plans and is in the early phases of developing a heat-specific plan for unincorporated areas, which will include urban greening and changes to the built environment to make neighborhoods cooler, said Ali Frazzini, policy director at the county’s Chief Sustainability office.

A wide view of people at a water park with various slides, water toys and splash pads.
Families play in the water park area of Adventure Park to cool off in Visalia on Aug. 17, 2024. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

“It’s not just about preventing deaths and other terrible outcomes of heat waves, although that’s extremely important,” Frazzini said. “It’s really about having livable communities where kids can play outside and street vendors can run their businesses without risk of overexposure.” 

Parfrey said the state plays a role, but “they’re not in charge of the roads or building codes or where you put a water fountain or how you build a local park. All of that has to be done at a local level.”

In 2022, the Newsom administration issued an Extreme Heat Action Plan outlining state steps to make California more resilient to extreme heat. That includes funding new community resilience centers where people can cool down as well as find resources or shelter during other emergencies, such as wildfires. It’s a model that some community advocates prefer over traditional cooling centers that are underutilized.

The state has granted almost $98 million for 24 projects so far, said Anna Jane Jones, who leads development of the centers for the state’s Strategic Growth Council.  

“It’s definitely gotten much hotter. You can’t even have your kids outside. We want to take him out to the playground but it’s too hot.”

Maribel Jimenez, Visalia resident

In Visalia, Jimenez said her family doesn’t have many options for cool spaces where her young son can be entertained.

At home, the family uses the air conditioner sparingly and keeps the blinds closed. During a heat wave, their power bill can climb to $250. If the bills were lower, she’d use the air conditioner all the time “We have to do what we have to do,” she said. 

Jimenez and her husband have thought twice about expanding their family and have floated the idea of moving somewhere else, but many of the affordable options, like Texas or Arizona, are even hotter than Visalia. 

“Global warming is a thing, and the heat isn’t getting any better anytime soon,” she said. “Everybody’s paying the price.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The rich must eat less meat

Here’s a sobering fact: Even if the entire world transitions away from fossil fuels, the way we farm and eat will cause global temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — the critical threshold set in the Paris Climate Agreement. The further we go above that limit, the more intense the effects of […]

Here’s a sobering fact: Even if the entire world transitions away from fossil fuels, the way we farm and eat will cause global temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — the critical threshold set in the Paris Climate Agreement. The further we go above that limit, the more intense the effects of climate change will get. The good news is that we know the most effective way to avert catastrophe: People in wealthier countries have to eat more plant-based foods and less red meat, poultry, and dairy. Such a shift in diets — combined with reducing global food waste and improving agricultural productivity — could cut annual climate-warming emissions from food systems by more than half. That’s one of the main findings from a new report by the EAT-Lancet Commission, a prestigious research body composed of dozens of experts in nutrition, climate, economics, agriculture, and other fields.   The report lays out how agriculture has played a major role in breaking several “planetary boundaries”; there’s greenhouse gas emissions — of which food and farming account for 30 percent — but also deforestation and air and water pollution. The new report builds on the commission’s first report, published in 2019 — an enormous undertaking that examined how to meet the nutritional needs of a growing global population while staying within planetary boundaries. It was highly influential and widely cited in both policy and academic literature, but it was also ruthlessly attacked in an intensive smear campaign by meat industry-aligned groups, academics, and influencers  — a form of “mis- and disinformation and denialism on climate science,” Johan Rockström, a co-author of the report, said in a recent press conference.   Our food’s massive environmental footprint stems from several sources: land-clearing to graze cattle and grow crops (much of them grown to feed farmed animals); the trillions of pounds of manure those farmed animals release; cattle’s methane-rich burps; food waste; fertilizer production and pollution; and fossil fuels used to power farms and supply chains. But this destruction is disproportionately committed to supply rich countries’ meat- and dairy-heavy diets, representing a kind of global dietary inequality. “The diets of the richest 30% of the global population contribute to more than 70% of the environmental pressures from food systems,” the new report reads.  To set humanity on a healthier, more sustainable path, the commission recommends what they call the Planetary Health Diet, which consists of more whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts than what most people in high- and upper-middle-income countries consume, along with less meat, dairy, and sugar. But in poor regions, like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, the commission recommends an increase in most animal products, as well as a greater variety of plant-based foods. If globally adopted, this plant-rich diet would prevent up to 15 million premature deaths each year. (The commission notes that the diet is a starting point and should be adjusted to accommodate individual needs and preferences, local diets, food availability, and other factors.) It would also reshape the global food industry, resulting in billions of fewer land animals raised for meat each year and a significant increase in legume, nut, fish, and whole grain production (while many regions currently eat more fish per capita than the report recommends, total global fish production would increase over time under the report’s parameters to meet demand from growing populations).  Rather than expecting billions of people to actively change how they eat, the commission recommends a number of policies, including reforming school meals, federal dietary guidelines, and farming subsidies; restricting marketing of unhealthy foods; and stronger environmental regulations for farms. If EAT-Lancet’s main recommendations were to be implemented, shifting to plant-rich diets would account for three-quarters of the major reduction in agricultural emissions. Other recommendations, like improving crop and livestock productivity and reducing food waste, are important, but their impact would be much smaller than diet change, contributing a quarter of expected agricultural emissions reductions.   The report is thorough and nuanced, but its conclusions aren’t exactly novel; for the past two decades, scientists have published a trove of studies on the environmental impact of agriculture and have landed on the same takeaways — especially that rich countries must shift their diets to be more plant-based. But that message has, with few exceptions, failed to incite action by governments and food companies, or even the environmental movement itself.  That failure can be explained, in part, by the meat industry’s aggressive, denialist response to the scientific consensus on meat, pollution, and climate change. The meat industry’s anti-science crusade, briefly explained In the 2010s, it seemed possible that the US and other wealthy countries might adopt more plant-based diets: Some researchers and journalists predicted that better plant-based meat products, from companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, could disrupt the conventional meat industry; governments in several countries recommended more plant-based diets; and campaigns like Meatless Monday and Veganuary had gained momentum. This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletter Sign up here for Future Perfect’s biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torrella, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more. Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@vox.com! These trends posed an existential threat to the livestock sector, and it was in this environment that the first EAT-Lancet report was published. It made international headlines, but the backlash was swift: The meat industry coordinated an intense and successful online backlash operation. Shortly after, the World Health Organization pulled its support for an EAT-Lancet report launch event. One report author said she was “overwhelmed” with “really nasty” comments, and another said he faced career repercussions.   In the years that followed, the industry ramped up its efforts to steer policy and narratives in its favor and out of line with scientific consensus:  From 2020 to 2023, European meat companies and industry groups successfully weakened EU climate policy.  The number of delegates representing the meat industry at the UN’s annual climate change conference tripled from 2022 to 2023. A 2023 United Nations report on reducing climate emissions in the food system omitted meat reduction as an approach, which some environmental scientists found “bewildering” (this could be due to intense meat industry pressure imposed on UN officials). The industry spent a great deal of money attacking plant-based meat companies, downplaying meat’s environmental impact, cozying up to environmental nonprofits, and spreading the narrative that voluntary, incremental tweaks to animal farming methods are sufficient — not regulations and diet shifts. Now, as global ambitions to reduce meat consumption and livestock production have shriveled in the face of intense pressure from industry, the new EAT-Lancet report feels more important, and also more vulnerable, than ever. But I worry most of the climate movement is only too eager to go along with the industry’s preferred approaches and narratives because many environmental advocates, like virtually everyone else across society, don’t want to accept that meat reduction in richer countries is non-negotiable. That much was evident when I attended last month’s Climate Week NYC, the world’s second-largest climate change gathering. The meat conversation missing from Climate Week The annual event brings together some 100,000 attendees for more than 1,000 events across the city. This year, only five events centered on plant-based food as a solution to climate change. In other words, what environmental scientists consider to be the most effective solution to addressing around 16 percent of greenhouse gas emissions received around 0.5 percent of the week’s programming. At the same time, the meat and dairy sectors managed to establish a large presence at Climate Week’s food and agriculture programs.  The Protein Pact, a coalition of meat and dairy companies and trade groups, sponsored a panel put on by the climate events company Nest Climate Campus, which listed one of Protein Pact’s representatives — who spoke on its main stage — as a “climate action expert.” The Protein Pact is also a leading sponsor of Regen House, an agriculture events company that hosted several days of Climate Week programming. Meanwhile, the Meat Institute — the founder of the Protein Pact — sponsored events put on by Food Tank, a nonprofit think tank. It would be one thing if the Protein Pact were open to compromise on environmental regulation and spoke more honestly about their industries’ climate impact. But many of its members lobby against environmental action and downplay the industry’s environmental footprint. Some even participated in the campaign against EAT-Lancet’s first report. Given this track record, it’s hard to see the industry’s presence at Climate Week as anything but a reputation laundering effort.  The Meat Institute, Food Tank, Nest Climate Campus, and Regen House didn’t respond to requests for comment.  This dynamic — in which meat industry narratives are welcomed and legitimized in much of the environmental movement — has contributed to public ignorance of the industry’s pollution and its underreporting in the news media.  According to a new, exclusive analysis from the environmental nonprofit Madre Brava, only 0.4 percent of climate coverage in US, UK, and European English-language news outlets mention meat and livestock. Madre Brava also polled US and Great Britain residents and found they underestimated animal agriculture’s environmental impact.  Finding hope in Climate Week’s Food Day   A lot of climate news coverage — including this story — is depressing and fatalistic, so I’ll try to end on a hopeful note. I felt a bit of this strange emotion at Food Day, a Climate Week event organized by Tilt Collective, a philanthropic climate foundation advocating for plant-rich diets. I’ve attended a lot of conferences on shifting humanity toward more plant-based diets, and I usually end up seeing a lot of the same people. That wasn’t the case at Food Day. There were a lot of unrecognizable faces — people from climate foundations, environmental nonprofits, government agencies, and universities — all eager to take on this big, challenging, fascinating problem, however intimidating it may be.  The following day, I attended a climate journalism event hosted by Sentient, a nonprofit news outlet that covers meat and the environment. Similarly, the room was packed with journalists and communications professionals, most of whom don’t cover these issues but were there to learn about them. These events — and the few others that centered on plant-based foods — were overshadowed by the meat industry’s Climate Week presence. But the events did suggest that there’s growing acceptance that we must change the way we eat, and that time is running out to do something about it. That’s not enough, but it’s better than nothing. Given the state of our politics and environmental policy, that’s maybe the best one can hope for.  

A Recipe for Avoiding 15 Million Deaths a Year and Climate Disaster Is Fixing Food, Scientists Say

Scientists are presenting new evidence that the worst effects of climate change can’t be avoided without a major transformation of food systems

Their conclusion: Without substantial changes to the food system, the worst effects of climate change will be unavoidable, even if humans successfully switch to cleaner energy.“If we do not transition away from the unsustainable food path we’re on today, we will fail on the climate agenda. We will fail on the biodiversity agenda. We will fail on food security. We’ll fail on so many pathways,” said study co-author Johan Rockström, who leads the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.The commission's first report in 2019 was regarded as a “really monumental landmark study” for its willingness to take food system reform seriously while factoring in human and environmental health, said Adam Shriver, director of wellness and nutrition at the Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement. Key points from the latest report: A ‘planetary health diet’ could avert 15 million deaths every year The first EAT-Lancet report proposed a “planetary health diet” centered on grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes. The update maintains that to improve their health while also reducing global warming, it's a good idea for people to eat one serving each of animal protein and dairy per day while limiting red meat to about once a week. This particularly applies to people in developed nations who disproportionately contribute to climate change and have more choices about the foods they eat.The dietary recommendations were based on data about risks of preventable diseases like Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, not environmental criteria. Human and planetary health happen to be in alignment, the researchers said.Rockström said it may seem “boring” for an analysis to reach the same conclusion six years later, but he finds this reassuring because food science is a rapidly moving field with many big studies and improving analytics.Food is one of the most deeply personal choices a person can make, and “the health component touches everyone’s heart,” Rockström said. While tackling global challenges is complicated, what individuals can do is relatively straightforward, like reducing meat consumption without eliminating it altogether.“People associate what they eat with identity” and strict diets can scare people off, but even small changes help, said Emily Cassidy, a research associate with climate science nonprofit Project Drawdown. She wasn’t involved with the research. Our food choices could push the planet past a tipping point The researchers looked beyond climate change and greenhouse gas emissions to factors including biodiversity, land use, water quality and agricultural pollution — and concluded that food systems are the biggest culprit in pushing Earth to the brink of thresholds for a livable planet.The report is “super comprehensive” in its scope, said Kathleen Merrigan, a professor of food systems at Arizona State University who also wasn’t involved with the research. It goes deep enough to show how farming and labor practices, consumption habits and other aspects of food production are interconnected — and could be changed, she said. “It’s like we’ve had this slow awakening to the role of food” in discussions about planetary existence, Merrigan said. Changing worldwide diets alone could lead to a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, because the production of meat, particularly red meat, requires releasing a lot of planet-warming gases, researchers concluded. Increased crop productivity, reductions in food waste and other improvements could bump that to 20%, the report said.Cassidy said that if the populations of high- and middle-income countries were to limit beef and lamb consumption to about one serving a week, as recommended in this latest EAT-Lancet report, they could reduce emissions equal to Russia's annual emissions total. Incorporating justice in an unequal world Meanwhile, the report concludes that nearly half the world's population is being denied adequate food, a healthy environment or decent work in the food system. Ethnic minorities, Indigenous peoples, women and children and people in conflict zones all face specific risks to their human rights and access to food.With United Nations climate talks around the corner in November, Rockström and other researchers hope leaders in countries around the world will incorporate scientific perspectives about the food system into their national policies. To do otherwise “takes us in a direction that makes us more and more fragile,” he said.“I mean both in terms of supply of food, but also in terms of health and in terms of stability of our environments,” Rockström said. “And this is a recipe to make societies weaker and weaker.”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 – Sept. 2025

Study Shows the World Is Far More Ablaze Now With Damaging Fires Than in the 1980s

A new study shows that the world's most damaging wildfires are happening four times more often now compared to the 1980s

WASHINGTON (AP) — Earth’s nastiest and costliest wildfires are blazing four times more often now than they did in the 1980s because of human-caused climate change and people moving closer to wildlands, a new study found.A study in the journal Science looks at global wildfires, not by acres burned which is the most common measuring stick, but by the harder to calculate economic and human damage they cause. The study concluded there has been a “climate-linked escalation of societally disastrous wildfires.”A team of Australian, American and German fire scientists calculated the 200 most damaging fires since 1980 based on the percentage of damage to the country's Gross Domestic Product at the time, taking inflation into account. The frequency of these events has increased about 4.4 times from 1980 to 2023, said study lead author Calum Cunningham, a pyrogeographer at the Fire Centre at the University of Tasmania in Australia. “It shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we do have a major wildfire crisis on our hands,” Cunningham said.About 43% of the 200 most damaging fires occurred in the last 10 years of the study. In the 1980s, the globe averaged two of these catastrophic fires a year and a few times hit four a year. From 2014 to 2023, the world averaged nearly nine a year, including 13 in 2021. It noted that the count of these devastating infernos sharply increased in 2015, which “coincided with increasingly extreme climatic conditions.” Though the study date ended in 2023, the last two years have been even more extreme, Cunningham said.Cunningham said often researchers look at how many acres a fire burns as a measuring stick, but he called that flawed because it really doesn't show the effect on people, with area not mattering as much as economics and lives. Hawaii's Lahaina fire wasn't big, but it burned a lot of buildings and killed a lot of people so it was more meaningful than one in sparsely populated regions, he said.“We need to be targeting the fires that matter. And those are the fires that cause major ecological destruction because they’re burning too intensely,” Cunningham said. But economic data is difficult to get with many countries keeping that information private, preventing global trends and totals from being calculated. So Cunningham and colleagues were able to get more than 40 years of global economic date from insurance giant Munich Re and then combine it with the public database from International Disaster Database, which isn't as complete but is collected by the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium.The study looked at “fire weather” which is hot, dry and windy conditions that make extreme fires more likely and more dangerous and found that those conditions are increasing, creating a connection to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.“We’ve firstly got that connection that all the disasters by and large occurred during extreme weather. We’ve also got a strong trend of those conditions becoming more common as a result of climate change. That’s indisputable,” Cunningham said. “So that’s a line of evidence there to say that climate change is having a significant effect on at least creating the conditions that are suitable for a major fire disaster.”If there was no human-caused climate change, the world would still have devastating fires, but not as many, he said: “We’re loading the dice in a sense by increasing temperatures.”There are other factors. People are moving closer to fire-prone areas, called the wildland-urban interface, Cunningham said. And society is not getting a handle on dead foliage that becomes fuel, he said. But those factors are harder to quantify compared to climate change, he said."This is an innovative study in terms of the data sources employed, and it mostly confirms common sense expectations: fires causing major fatalities and economic damage tend to be those in densely populated areas and to occur during the extreme fire weather conditions that are becoming more common due to climate change," said Jacob Bendix, a geography and environment professor at Syracuse University who studies fires, but wasn't part of this research team.Not only does the study makes sense, but it's a bad sign for the future, said Mike Flannigan, a fire researcher at Thompson Rivers University in Canada. Flannigan, who wasn't part of research, said: "As the frequency and intensity of extreme fire weather and drought increases the likelihood of disastrous fires increases so we need to do more to be better prepared."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 – Sept. 2025

Senior Tories dismayed at Badenoch’s ‘catastrophic’ vow to repeal Climate Change Act

Theresa May, Alok Sharma, business and church leaders say plan would harm UK and not even Margaret Thatcher would have countenanced itUK politics live – latest updatesThe former prime minister Theresa May has condemned a promise made by Kemi Badenoch to repeal the Climate Change Act if the Tories win the next general election, calling the plans a “catastrophic mistake”.She joined other leading Tories, business groups, scientists and the Church of England in attacking the Conservative leader’s announcement, which would remove the requirement for governments to set “carbon budgets” laying out how far greenhouse gas emissions will be cut every five years, up to 2050. Continue reading...

The former prime minister Theresa May has condemned a promise made by Kemi Badenoch to repeal the Climate Change Act if the Tories win the next general election, calling the plans a “catastrophic mistake”.She joined other leading Tories, business groups, scientists and the Church of England in attacking the Conservative leader’s announcement, which would remove the requirement for governments to set “carbon budgets” laying out how far greenhouse gas emissions will be cut every five years, up to 2050.May called it a “retrograde” step which upended 17 years of consensus between the UK’s main political parties and the scientific community. She continued: “To row back now would be a catastrophic mistake for while that consensus is being tested, the science remains the same. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure we protect the planet for their futures and that means giving business the reassurance it needs to find the solutions for the very grave challenges we face.”Green Tories have been increasingly concerned at Badenoch’s move to position the Tories closer to the Reform party, whose senior leaders deny climate science, on energy and net zero policy.Repealing the 2008 Climate Change Act and cancellation of the target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would remove obligations to cut carbon and dismantle the cornerstone of climate policy.Under the act, which was passed by Labour with the support of David Cameron’s Conservative party, with only five rebels voting against, ministers must set five-yearly limits on the UK’s future emissions and bring in policies to meet them. It was the first such legislation in the world, but scores of other countries have since followed suit.Alok Sharma, the Tory former minister and peer who was president of the Cop26 UN climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, told the Guardian: “Thanks to the strong and consistent commitment of the previous Conservative government to climate action and net zero, the UK attracted many tens of billions of pounds of private sector investment and accompanying jobs. This is a story of British innovation, economic growth, skilled jobs and global leadership – not just a matter of environmental stewardship.”He warned that Badenoch risked not just alienating allies on the world stage, but discouraging voters. “Turning our back on this progress now risks future investment and jobs into our country, as well as our international standing,” he said. “The path to a prosperous, secure, and electable future for the Conservative party lies in building on our achievements, not abandoning them.”Lord Deben, who served as environment secretary under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, said none of Badenoch’s predecessors would have countenanced such a move. “This is not what Margaret Thatcher would have done,” he told the Guardian. “She understood this. If you want de-industrialisation of Britain, then [repealing the Climate Change Act] is the right way to go about it.”Business leaders also warned of serious economic damage. Rain Newton-Smith, the chief executive of the CBI, the UK’s biggest business association, said: “The scientific reality of climate change makes action from both government and business imperative. Scrapping the Climate Change Act would be a backwards step in achieving our shared objectives of reaching economic growth, boosting energy security, protecting our environment and making life healthier for future generations.”She said investment had been stimulated, not stifled as Badenoch suggested, by the legislation. “The Climate Act has been the bedrock for investment flowing into the UK and shows that decarbonisation and economic growth are not a zero-sum game. Businesses delivering the energy transition added £83bn to the economy last year alone, providing high-paying jobs to almost a million people across the UK,” she said. “Ripping up the framework that’s given investors confidence that the UK is serious about sustainable growth through a low-carbon future would damage our economy.”If Badenoch were to repeal the Climate Change Act, Britain’s exports could be hit under the EU’s green tariffs. The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, now in its trial stages, imposes levies on companies from countries that are not judged to have an adequate price on carbon. The measure, intended to prevent other countries from undercutting climate rules, could add crippling costs to the UK’s industrial exports to its biggest trading partner.Civil society also rallied to reject Badenoch’s plans. Both the Church of England and the Catholic church spoke out, with Graham Usher, the bishop of Norwich, lead for environmental affairs for the Church of England, saying: “For Britain, the Climate Change Act reflects the best of who we are as a country: a nation that cares for creation, protects the vulnerable and builds hope for future generations. To weaken it now would be to turn our back on that calling and on the values we share as a nation. That is why the Church of England has committed to strive for net zero by 2030, because caring for God’s creation is not optional; it is essential if we are to safeguard the Earth for those who come after us.”Bishop John Arnold, the Catholic lead for the the environment, referred to the speech by Pope Leo XIV on Wednesday, criticising climate sceptics. “Pope Leo XIV yesterday inspired us to work with unity and togetherness on the challenges facing our common home … More than ever, we need to work together, to think of future generations and take urgent action if we are to truly respond to the scale of this climate crisis. A crisis which affects those who are poorest and most vulnerable and have done least to cause it.”

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.