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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Pollutants from gas stoves kill 40,000 Europeans each year, report finds

News Feed
Monday, October 28, 2024

Gas stoves kill 40,000 Europeans each year by pumping pollutants into their lungs, a report has found, a death toll twice as high as that from car crashes.The cookers spew harmful gases linked to heart and lung disease but experts warn there is little public awareness of their dangers. On average, using a gas stove shaves nearly two years off a person’s life, according to a study of households in the EU and UK.“The extent of the problem is far worse than we thought,” said lead author Juana María Delgado-Saborit, who runs the environmental health research lab at Jaume I University in Spain.The researchers attributed 36,031 early deaths each year to gas cookers in the EU, and a further 3,928 in the UK. They say their estimates are conservative because they only considered the health effects of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and not other gases such as carbon monoxide and benzene.“Way back in 1978, we first learned that NO2 pollution is many times greater in kitchens using gas than electric cookers,” said Delgado-Saborit. “But only now are we able to put a number on the amount of lives being cut short.”One in three households in the EU cook with gas, rising to 54% of households in the UK and more than 60% in Italy, the Netherlands, Romania and Hungary. The cookers burn fossil gas and eject harmful substances that inflame airways.The report, which was supported by the European Climate Foundation, builds on research last year that measured air quality in homes to find out how much cooking with gas increased indoor air pollution. This allowed scientists from Jaume I University and the University of Valencia to work out ratios between indoor and outdoor air pollution when cooking with gas, and map indoor exposure to NO2.They then applied risk rates of disease, sourced from studies on outdoor NO2 pollution, to work out the number of lives lost.“The main uncertainty is whether the risk of dying found with outdoor NO2 from mainly traffic can be applied to indoor NO2 from gas cooking,” said Steffen Loft, an air pollution expert at the University of Copenhagen, who was not involved in the research. “But it is a fair assumption and required for the assessment.”The results fall in line with a study in the US in May, which found gas and propane stoves contribute up to 19,000 adult deaths each year.The EU tightened its rules on outdoor air quality this month but it has not set standards for indoor air quality. The European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) has urged policymakers to phase out gas cookers by setting limits on emissions, offering money to help switch to cleaner cookers and forcing manufacturers to label cookers with their pollution risks.“For too long it has been easy to dismiss the dangers of gas cookers,” said Sara Bertucci from the EPHA. “Like cigarettes, people didn’t think much of the health impacts – and, like cigarettes, gas cookers are a little fire that fills our home with pollution.”People can partly protect themselves from fumes when cooking by opening windows when they cook and turning on extractor fans.Delgado-Saborit said she and her husband grew up in homes where cooking was done on electric hobs, which is “cleaner, safer and healthier”, but later moved into a home with a gas stove in the kitchen.“We are now in the midst of some home improvements and I am counting the days for having a new electric hob fitted in my kitchen.”

Study says harmful gases linked to heart and lung disease shave nearly two years off a person’s lifeGas stoves kill 40,000 Europeans each year by pumping pollutants into their lungs, a report has found, a death toll twice as high as that from car crashes.The cookers spew harmful gases linked to heart and lung disease but experts warn there is little public awareness of their dangers. On average, using a gas stove shaves nearly two years off a person’s life, according to a study of households in the EU and UK. Continue reading...

Gas stoves kill 40,000 Europeans each year by pumping pollutants into their lungs, a report has found, a death toll twice as high as that from car crashes.

The cookers spew harmful gases linked to heart and lung disease but experts warn there is little public awareness of their dangers. On average, using a gas stove shaves nearly two years off a person’s life, according to a study of households in the EU and UK.

“The extent of the problem is far worse than we thought,” said lead author Juana María Delgado-Saborit, who runs the environmental health research lab at Jaume I University in Spain.

The researchers attributed 36,031 early deaths each year to gas cookers in the EU, and a further 3,928 in the UK. They say their estimates are conservative because they only considered the health effects of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and not other gases such as carbon monoxide and benzene.

“Way back in 1978, we first learned that NO2 pollution is many times greater in kitchens using gas than electric cookers,” said Delgado-Saborit. “But only now are we able to put a number on the amount of lives being cut short.”

One in three households in the EU cook with gas, rising to 54% of households in the UK and more than 60% in Italy, the Netherlands, Romania and Hungary. The cookers burn fossil gas and eject harmful substances that inflame airways.

The report, which was supported by the European Climate Foundation, builds on research last year that measured air quality in homes to find out how much cooking with gas increased indoor air pollution. This allowed scientists from Jaume I University and the University of Valencia to work out ratios between indoor and outdoor air pollution when cooking with gas, and map indoor exposure to NO2.

They then applied risk rates of disease, sourced from studies on outdoor NO2 pollution, to work out the number of lives lost.

“The main uncertainty is whether the risk of dying found with outdoor NO2 from mainly traffic can be applied to indoor NO2 from gas cooking,” said Steffen Loft, an air pollution expert at the University of Copenhagen, who was not involved in the research. “But it is a fair assumption and required for the assessment.”

The results fall in line with a study in the US in May, which found gas and propane stoves contribute up to 19,000 adult deaths each year.

The EU tightened its rules on outdoor air quality this month but it has not set standards for indoor air quality. The European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) has urged policymakers to phase out gas cookers by setting limits on emissions, offering money to help switch to cleaner cookers and forcing manufacturers to label cookers with their pollution risks.

“For too long it has been easy to dismiss the dangers of gas cookers,” said Sara Bertucci from the EPHA. “Like cigarettes, people didn’t think much of the health impacts – and, like cigarettes, gas cookers are a little fire that fills our home with pollution.”

People can partly protect themselves from fumes when cooking by opening windows when they cook and turning on extractor fans.

Delgado-Saborit said she and her husband grew up in homes where cooking was done on electric hobs, which is “cleaner, safer and healthier”, but later moved into a home with a gas stove in the kitchen.

“We are now in the midst of some home improvements and I am counting the days for having a new electric hob fitted in my kitchen.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Ministers yet to seek climate advice on Heathrow expansion

The government faces calls to give the Climate Change Committee a bigger role in advising on airport expansion.

Ministers yet to seek climate advice on Heathrow expansionJoshua NevettPolitical reporterPA MediaThe UK government's climate change advisory panel has said it has not yet been asked to formally assess how plans to expand Heathrow airport would impact on carbon emmission targets.The Climate Change Committee (CCC) told the BBC it would give a view on plans to build a third runway at Heathrow if advice was requested.The government said the expansion must not breach the UK's legally binding target of lowering emissions to net zero by 2050.The CCC is required by law to assess whether the target will be met and it has repeatedly cautioned against airport expansion.The government said it was assessing initial proposals on Heathrow expansion and would engage with the committee during the process.Ministers can ask the CCC for ad-hoc advice on specific policy issues but is under no legal duty to follow it.Lord Deben, a former CCC chairman, said there was "limited space for aviation growth" without emissions reductions."If they give planning permission for expansion of Heathrow that inevitably means there will be less opportunity for other airports in Britain," Lord Deben said."This must be a sensible, logical decision and the CCC must be involved in giving advice."Greenpeace UK said there was an obvious need for independent experts at the committee "to assess the real risks and costs of any expansion"."Any attempt to side-step them would show a complete lack of confidence in Labour's stated position regarding the tests a new runway needs to pass, and more importantly, miss the legal requirement for UK carbon reductions," Dr Douglas Parr, Policy Director for Greenpeace UK, said.The CCC also told the BBC it had not been asked to provide advice on any future expansion of Gatwick Airport.A decision on a proposed second runway at Gatwick is expected in the coming weeks after Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said she was "minded to approve" the expansion in February.Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the Labour government was backing plans for a third runway at Heathrow in January this year.Reeves said Heathrow expansion, delayed for decades over environmental concerns, would "make Britain the world's best connected place to do business" and boost economic growth.At the time, the government said the expansion "must be delivered in line with the UK's legal, environmental and climate obligations".The expansion of Heathrow has long been opposed by green groups and it is expected to face resistance and probably legal challenges, not least because of its environmental impact.In July, the CEO of Heathrow Airport, Thomas Woldbye, insisted the expansion proposal was in line with the aviation industry's target to be net zero by 2050.But he acknowledged that planning permission would not be granted by the government unless legal limits of emissions were adhered to.The government wants to review planning guidelines that will shape its decisions to expand Heathrow, Gatwick and other major airports.Giving evidence to MPs this week, the CCC's chief economist, Dr James Richardson, said it wasn't too late to influence the review, which has not been launched yet.But Labour MP Barry Gardiner said he was seriously worried the CCC was "acquiescing in what the government is planning for aviation".He questioned why the government had not sought the CCC's advice before announcing its support for Heathrow's expansion.ReutersThe Climate Change Committee gave its most recent advice on aviation emissions in the Seventh Carbon Budget.The budget, published in February, said the sector can reach net zero through the roll-out of sustainable aviation fuel, the electrification of planes, and managing growth in demand for flights.But the committee suggested limiting airport expansion to reduce emissions and warned the development of low-carbon aviation technologies was "uncertain"."The aviation sector needs to take responsibility for its emissions reaching net zero by 2050," the committee said."The cost of decarbonising aviation and addressing non-CO2 effects should be reflected in the cost to fly. This will help manage growth in aviation demand in line with net zero."A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "The government is assessing initial proposals on Heathrow expansion – a significant step towards unlocking growth, creating jobs, and delivering vital national infrastructure to drive forward our Plan for Change."The assessment of proposals is being conducted to support the forthcoming Airports National Policy Statement review, and we will engage the Climate Change Committee throughout this process."We have been clear any airport expansion proposals need to demonstrate they contribute to economic growth, can be delivered in line with the UK's legally binding climate change commitments, and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution."Additional reporting by BBC transport correspondent Katy Austin

Climate
Government
Pollution

Newsom taps climate ‘architect’ to lead California air board as Trump fights heat up

At the state’s top air regulator, Lauren Sanchez will replace Liane Randolph, taking the helm as California battles Trump, rising costs, and the future of its climate agenda.

In summary At the state’s top air regulator, Lauren Sanchez will replace Liane Randolph, taking the helm as California battles Trump, rising costs, and the future of its climate agenda. The California Air Resources Board is getting a new leader at a pivotal moment, as it battles the Trump administration in court and contends with growing scrutiny from Democrats and voters questioning the price of the state’s climate principles. Liane Randolph has chaired the board of the state’s top air and climate regulator since 2020. She oversaw a range of policies including landmark clean-car and truck rules, a fuel standard with implications for gas prices and the state’s signature carbon trading program, cap-and-trade. This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom nominated his senior climate advisor, Lauren Sanchez, to replace her. Randolph, in an interview, told CalMatters her departure was part of her “personal journey,” something she began considering earlier this year. “I’ve worked really hard over the last almost five years, and I’m ready for a break,” she said. “I am confident that the transition will go incredibly smoothly.” Observers say the handover highlights the air board’s key role at a time of political pushback and consumer resistance. “Pretty much all of the major areas in climate that [the air board] touches are going to be in really significant periods of challenge,” said Danny Cullenward, a climate expert and vice chair of an independent committee that analyzes the cap-and-trade program. “This is not an easy time to take over an agency. It’s a time when sound strategy — and not just autopilot — is going to be required.” California’s climate ambition meets Trump opposition Newsom’s 2020 order to phase out gas-car sales by 2035 was a watershed moment for California climate policy. His executive order was a headline-grabbing strike at the oil industry, meant to accelerate not only the state’s adoption of electric cars, but the nation’s. Newsom said Randolph would be the champion of that effort as his pick to lead the air board just a few months later, calling her “the kind of bold, innovative leader that will lead in our fight against climate change with equity and all California’s communities at heart.” But Randolph faced a larger challenge than her predecessors: a Trump administration bent on thwarting California’s authority. The White House immediately criticized Newsom’s order as an example of how “extreme the left has become,” evidence that liberal policymakers wanted to “dictate every aspect of every American’s life.” While Randolph’s air board made significant policy during the years of the Biden administration, Trump attacked those efforts once he returned to office. “Liane didn’t have the time or the circumstances to pivot toward a new, adjusted strategy,” said Daniel Sperling, a former member of the board, now the director of the Institute for Transportation Studies at UC Davis. “She inherited the trajectory that California was on, and that the governor was articulating, and then she got undermined by the Trump administration.” For the gasoline car ban, the air board held months of marathon hearings filled with car owners, environmentalists and industry lobbyists. In 2022, the board approved the measure that Newsom wanted. More rules soon followed, targeting diesel trucks, locomotives and other major polluters. Ethan Elkind, a climate law expert at UC Berkeley, said Randolph steered the board through a difficult time.  In disputes involving environmental justice groups, he said, “she really listened to people,” building consensus and lowering tensions.  “She’s always very diplomatic,” Elkind said. “She was mild-mannered, she wasn’t polemical, she didn’t use it as a perch to pontificate. She seemed very measured and steady and took her role as the public face, and the need for outreach, very seriously.” Policies moving the state toward zero emissions vehicles have struggled, as federal and state regulators have pulled industry in opposing directions.  The Biden administration signed off on California’s clean-car rules last year. But the state air board withdrew one of its most aggressive measures on diesel trucks, as well as rules on locomotives, harbor craft and other polluters, in anticipation of Trump’s return. “There’s not a full understanding of how aggressive the administration’s attacks on all of California’s efforts to achieve climate action have been,” Randolph said at a CalMatters event in San Francisco. She pointed to the Trump administration’s withdrawl of a rule aimed at cleaning up nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. “That has nothing to do with electric vehicles,” Randolph said. “It was all about just attacking California’s authority, and letting the big companies who supported the administration continue to pollute communities.” Catherine Reheis-Boyd, a senior advisor to the Western States Petroleum Association, said that under Randolph’s tenure, California’s ambition got ahead of consumers and technology. Her pushback echoed the broader clash with the Trump administration, which has targeted electric cars as costly for consumers and impractical. “We have no problem with electric vehicles,” Reheis-Boyd said, at the San Francisco CalMatters event. But “we think there should be a free market.” Searing climate battles at home Last November, the air board revamped its Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a program that uses financial incentives to encourage cleaner fuels as the state phases out gasoline and diesel.  The fight exposed twin challenges arising from within the state: rising costs and lingering environmental harms not addressed by the climate policy. Consumer advocates raised alarms about gas prices, while environmentalists warned that boosting alternatives like biofuels made from cow manure or soybeans offered limited climate benefits. Phoebe Seaton, co-director of the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, said her group “strongly disagrees” with the expansion of the fuel standard program but credited Randolph’s leadership for showing up and listening to all parties.  “We are especially grateful for the time Chair Randolph dedicated to meeting in Pixley and Fresno with people impacted by dairies,” Seaton said. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, speaks during an EVgo fast charging station launch event at El Mercado Plaza Shopping Center in Union City on Sept. 25, 2023. The event highlighted California achieving its goal of installing 10,000 direct current fast chargers for electric vehicles. Photo by Loren Elliott for CalMatters Central valley politicians criticized the program for making fuels less affordable. Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, a Bakersfield Democrat looking to unseat a moderate Republican in Congress, called for Randolph’s resignation earlier this year. She argued that the air board failed to study the economic impacts of its new standard. Her office did not respond to a request from CalMatters for comment. Cullenward said the air board hasn’t always clearly said what its programs cost consumers. While Newsom and the legislature will extend cap-and-trade, the board still must decide how to reshape the program after pausing work on it during the reauthorization fight. “One of the toughest things about this process is that being really honest about what’s working — and what’s not working — and what the costs of the different options are, is going to be essential,” Cullenward said. “Historically, that’s not something staff have ever embraced.” Newsom praised Randolph for stepping in during a time of uncertainty and leading with “vision and resolve.” She will leave at the end of the month, before the end of her term, which lasts through 2026. Questions about costs, affordability and environmental concerns will continue to hang over the air board as it decides how to steer cap-and-trade and other programs in the years ahead. Randolph, in her remarks Wednesday, said California regulators must get creative in the face of federal attacks, while also addressing public concerns and communicating why the state’s policies matter. “All of the impacts of climate change make things fundamentally unaffordable,” she said. Newsom’s point person steps in Randolph’s replacement, Lauren Sanchez, has been the governor’s point person on climate from within the executive office. Translating Newsom’s vision into state policy at a key turning point while also leading a 16-member board and managing the agency’s vast, highly technical staff will present a new challenge. Sanchez built her climate credentials on the international stage and inside the governor’s office, where she helped steer billions in budget funding for climate programs and advised Newsom on this summer’s high-stakes energy and climate package. Climate advisor Lauren Sanchez, center, attends Gov. Gavin Newsom’s trip to China on Oct. 29, 2023. Photo via Office of the Governor of California “He turned to the aide he trusts most on climate,” said Dean Florez, the state Senate appointee to the air board. “Lauren’s been at his side drafting the playbook and steering the billions. This isn’t a change in course, it’s keeping faith with his own circle.” Before joining Newsom’s office in 2021, Sanchez served as a climate negotiator at the U.S. State Department and later advised John Kerry in the Biden administration. She also held senior roles at the California Environmental Protection Agency and the air board, coordinating climate policy across state agencies and shaping California’s international climate work. “Lauren has been my most trusted climate advisor and the chief architect of California’s bold climate agenda,” Newsom said. “She is a force in her own right: her expertise, tenacity, and vision will serve California well as the Board works to protect our communities and defends our climate progress against relentless attacks from Washington.” Sanchez played a central role in weaving climate priorities into the state budget in recent years, said Jamie Pew, climate policy advisor with NetxGen Policy. Cap-and-trade pays for a climate credit that consumers see on their utility bills; Pew said Sanchez advocated for expanding the credit during the recent legislative negotiations. “Lauren has been a champion for getting cap and invest done this year, which will ensure that funding for critical climate programs will continue to grow at a time when federal rollbacks threaten the transition,” Pew said. Next week, the state’s top air and climate regulators will vote on amendments narrowing a previously rescinded truck rule to public fleets. The board is also advancing an emergency regulation to keep its clean-car and truck standards enforceable as the board battles the federal government in court. Many of the air board’s recent accomplishments have run into roadblocks this year. As expected, Trump quickly moved to block California’s mandates aided by Congress, signing three measures in June against clean cars and two others targeting diesel trucks. Adrian Martinez, a lawyer with Earthjustice, said California’s air board faces “perilous times.” “Everyone breathing in California depends on it,” he said.

Climate
Energy
Nature

Revealed: ‘Corporate capture’ of UN aviation body by industry

Exclusive: Industry delegates outnumbered climate experts by 14 to one at recent ICAO meeting, thinktank saysThe UN aviation organisation has been captured by the industry, a report has concluded, leading to the urgent action required to tackle the sector’s high carbon emissions being blocked.Industry delegates outnumbered climate experts by 14 to one at the recent “environmental protection” meeting of the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the report found. The ICAO is the forum where nations agree the rules governing international aviation. Continue reading...

The UN aviation organisation has been captured by the industry, a report has concluded, leading to the urgent action required to tackle the sector’s high carbon emissions being blocked.Industry delegates outnumbered climate experts by 14 to one at the recent “environmental protection” meeting of the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the report found. The ICAO is the forum where nations agree the rules governing international aviation.The analysis, by the thinktank InfluenceMap, concluded that ICAO policies to tackle the climate crisis were weak and reflected the self-interest of powerful members of the aviation industry, such as the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents 350 airlines. ICAO’s assembly, its highest-level summit, held every three years, starts on Tuesday.The report also criticises a lack of transparency compared with other UN organisations, with the meetings where climate policies are developed being closed to the media and requiring delegates to sign non-disclosure agreements. This gives an advantage to groups opposing serious climate action that could otherwise be held publicly accountable, the analysts said.The result of this corporate capture, the report says, is that climate policy for international aviation is judged “critically insufficient” by the independent Climate Action Tracker analysts, aligned with over 4C of global heating.“Our report lays out a clear case of corporate capture,” said Lucca Ewbank, the transport manager at InfluenceMap. “Industry lobbyists continue to dominate decision-making processes at ICAO, relying on closed-door meetings to cement their influence. In order for the aviation sector to meet the existential challenge of climate change, ICAO needs a hard course correction.”Flying causes more climate-heating pollution than any other form of transport per mile and is dominated by rich passengers, with 1% of the world’s population responsible for 50% of aviation emissions. Despite the urgent need for cuts in carbon pollution, ICAO forecasts a doubling of passenger numbers by 2042 and Climate Action Tracker predicts that without strong action, aviation’s carbon dioxide emissions could double or even triple by 2050.The industry argues that more efficient aircraft, sustainable fuels and ICAO’s primary carbon policy, an offsetting scheme, can control carbon emissions.But independent experts say the feasible scale of such measures is extremely unlikely to compensate for such huge growth in air traffic. For example, the “unambitious and problematic” offsetting scheme, called Corsia, has yet to require any airline to use a carbon credit, and fuel-efficiency improvements are stalling. The experts say aviation growth must be curbed if climate targets are to be met.A plane comes in to land over houses at Heathrow in London. Independent experts say aviation growth must be curbed if climate targets are to be met. Photograph: Steve Parsons/PAEwbank said: “Airlines and industry associations are ignoring the warning lights and prioritising industry interests over essential emissions cuts, with only a weak offsetting policy and non-binding targets to show for years of deliberation.”A spokesperson for ICAO said it was committed to increasing transparency as part of a “cultural transformation” launched in 2022. “The ICAO assembly next week will be reviewing progress and determining the next steps. The resolutions passed by the assembly will also support the implementation of ICAO’s long-term strategic plan for 2050, which envisions zero fatalities and net zero carbon emissions. The review of the outcomes and the resulting decisions by the ICAO council and assembly are fully open and broadcast to all.”The spokesperson said developing robust technical standards required detailed input from industry experts and may involve commercially sensitive information that is subject to confidentiality rules. “ICAO strongly urges advocacy by all stakeholders, particularly at a time when air transport is facing its most significant opportunities and challenges,” he said.The InfluenceMap report found that at ICAO’s environmental negotiations in February, 72 delegates (31% of the total) represented industry trade associations, including employees of the fossil fuel companies ExxonMobil and Chevron and the aircraft makers Airbus and Boeing. In contrast, just five delegates (2%) represented green groups.Most of the rest of the delegates (57%) represented countries, although eight of these were also employees of aviation or fossil fuel companies. One of the trade associations, representing aircraft manufacturers, had 41 delegates, more than any national delegation.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy 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 promotionThe dominance of industry interests has grown since the last major environmental meeting in 2022, at which aviation industry delegates outnumbered those from green groups by 10 to one.ICAO and the international aviation industry have set themselves a target of net zero emissions by 2050. But the International Energy Agency found in January that aviation was “not on track” to meet this goal.The InfluenceMap report notes that industry support for the 2050 target appears to be weakening, with the IATA head, Willie Walsh, recently calling for it to be “re-evaluated”, citing concern among airlines about rising costs. The industry failed to meet all but one of 50 of its own climate targets in the past two decades, a 2022 report found. IATA did not respond to requests for comment.Aviation fuel is generally untaxed and new levies to fund climate action are being discussed at high levels. However, in April ICAO called on member states to lobby the UN climate organisation and other bodies to oppose such proposals.ICAO has been widely criticised over its climate policies, even by industry insiders. A group of aviation professionals said in May that the industry was “failing dramatically” in its efforts to tackle its role in the climate crisis.ICAO’s offsetting scheme is also widely criticised. Marte van der Graaf, of the thinktank and campaign group Transport & Environment, said: “Corsia offsets don’t actually reduce emissions. They are often based on dubious ‘avoided deforestation’ schemes based on hypothetical predictions little better than astrology.” IATA warned on Wednesday that there was likely to be a “terrifying” shortfall of approved offsets after the voluntary phase of Corsia ends in 2027.Ewbank said ICAO needed to “prioritise public interests, science-based policies and open negotiations, so that independent experts and civil society can come together with industry in good faith, and so that industry can begin to take real responsibility for the climate impact of the aviation sector”.

Climate
CO2
Energy

Wildfire smoke could soon kill 71,000 Americans every year

The haze may already kill 40,000 people in the U.S. each year — the same number who die in traffic crashes. Climate change will only make matters worse.

You may live many miles away from a wildfire, but it could still kill you. That’s because all that smoke wafting in from afar poses a mortal risk. The threat is so great, in fact, that any official tally of people killed in a fire most likely is wildly low, given that it counts obvious victims, not those who later died after inhaling its far-flung haze. Los Angeles’ catastrophic blazes in January, for instance, killed 30 people according to authorities, but more like 440 according to scientists, who determined excess deaths at the time were likely due to smoke. As climate change makes such conflagrations ever more catastrophic, that mortality is only going to escalate. A new study in the journal Nature estimates that wildfire smoke already kills 40,000 Americans each year — the same number who die in traffic crashes — and that could rise to more than 71,000 annually by 2050 if emissions remain high. The economic damages in the United States may soar to over $600 billion each year by then, more than all other estimated climate impacts combined. And the problem is by no means isolated to North America: A separate paper also publishing today estimates that 1.4 million people worldwide could die prematurely each year from smoke by the end of this century — six times higher than current rates.  Together, the studies add to a growing body of evidence that wildfires are killing an extraordinary number of people — and are bound to claim ever more if humanity doesn’t rapidly slow climate change and better protect itself from pollution. “The numbers are really striking, but those don’t need to be inevitable,” said Minghao Qiu, an environmental scientist at Stony Brook University and lead author of the first paper. “There are a lot of things we could do to reduce this number.” The core of the problem is desiccation: As the planet warms, the atmosphere gets thirstier, which means it sucks more moisture out of vegetation, turning it to tinder. Scientists are also finding more weather whiplash, in which stretches of extra wet conditions encourage the growth of plants, followed by stretches of extra-dry conditions that parch all that biomass. Droughts, too, are getting worse, making landscapes exceptionally flammable.  Tragically enough, wildfires have grown so intense and deadly in recent years that scientists have been getting bountiful data to make these connections between the haze and cascading health problems downwind. “We totally underestimate the total burden when we don’t consider the smoke that is generated, that can be transported miles and miles away,” said Tarik Benmarhnia, a climate epidemiologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who studies the impacts of smoke but wasn’t involved in either of the new papers. “That is by far the biggest factor for mortality and other health issues associated with this type of pollution.” Bigger, more intense infernos are belching smoke not just for days or weeks, but sometimes months at a time. This year’s blazes in Canada, for instance, have consistently blanketed parts of the U.S. in unhealthy air quality. That adds to the haze produced by domestic fires, especially in the West, making for dangerous conditions across the country. Indeed, Qiu’s modeling estimates that annual wildfire emissions from the western U.S. could increase by up to 482 percent by 2055, compared to the average between 2011 and 2020. In the global study published today, researchers estimate that worldwide, this deadly pollution could grow by nearly 25 percent by the end of the century. But it won’t be evenly distributed: Africa could see 11 times more fire-related deaths by that time, compared to Europe and the U.S. seeing one to two times as many. “Africa has the world’s largest burned area due to extensive savannas, forests, and grasslands, combined with long dry seasons,” said Bo Zheng, an associate professor at Tsinghua University in China and coauthor of the paper, in an email to Grist. “This widespread burning drives disproportionate smoke exposure and health impacts.” The major concern with wildfire smoke is PM 2.5, or particulate matter smaller than 2.5 millionths of a meter, which burrows deep into the lungs and crosses into the bloodstream. More and more research is showing this irritant is far more toxic than that from other sources, like industries and traffic. “We have mountains of evidence that inhaling these particles is really bad for a broad range of health outcomes,” said Marshall Burke, an environmental economist at Stanford University, who coauthored the paper with Qiu. “They’re small enough to sort of spread throughout your body and cause negative health impacts — respiratory impacts, cardiovascular impacts. Most, I would say, bodily systems now show responses to air pollution and small particle exposure.” Making matters worse, wildfires aren’t just turning plants into particulates. Those Canadian conflagrations have been burning through mining regions, where soils are tainted with toxicants like arsenic and lead, potentially mobilizing those nasties into the atmosphere. And whenever fires burn through the built environment, they’re chewing through the many hazardous materials in buildings and vehicles. “It burns up cars, it burns up bicycles, it burns up anything that’s in your garage,” Burke said. “That’s incinerated, aerosolized, and then we’re literally breathing cars and bicycles when we are exposed to that smoke.” All told, even brief exposures to wildfire smoke can be devastating, exacerbating respiratory conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as cardiovascular diseases, since PM 2.5 is entering the bloodstream. Those issues can continue for years after exposure, and other toxins like carcinogens in the haze can cause still more problems that might last a lifetime.  Qiu and Burke’s new modeling estimates that cumulative deaths due to wildfire smoke in the U.S. could reach 1.9 million between 2026 and 2055. That’s a tragic loss of life, but it also comes at a major economic cost of lost productivity. And that doesn’t even include the impacts that are non-lethal, like the degradation of mental health and people missing school and work because of poor air quality. There are ways to blunt this crisis, at least. Reducing carbon emissions will help slow the worsening of wildfires. Doing more controlled burns clears built-up fuel, meaning the landscape might still ignite, but less catastrophically. And governments can help their people get air purifiers to run during smoky days. “If climate change continues apace, but we reduce the amount of fuel loading in our forests and are better able to protect ourselves, then our projections are going to be overestimates of the damages, and that will be a good thing,” Burke said. “These damages are not inevitable.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Wildfire smoke could soon kill 71,000 Americans every year on Sep 18, 2025.

Climate
Crisis
Government

The Indiana town suffering under the shadow of a BP refinery: ‘They’ve had way too many accidents’

Whiting residents worried after facility, which has had multiple problems, shut down temporarily after rainIt was the biggest news story around the midwest as the Labor Day weekend approached earlier this month: the unexpected surging price of fuel at the gas station.But for residents of Whiting, Indiana, petroleum has been presenting an altogether bigger problem. Continue reading...

It was the biggest news story around the midwest as the Labor Day weekend approached earlier this month: the unexpected surging price of fuel at the gas station.But for residents of Whiting, Indiana, petroleum has been presenting an altogether bigger problem.A severe thunderstorm moved through north-west Indiana on 19 August, dropping 6in of rain on Whiting, a largely industrial town, flooding streets and temporarily closing schools.The flooding also shut down the BP Whiting Refinery, the largest fuel refinery in the midwest, with a capacity to process around 400,000 barrels of crude oil a day.Residents living around the facility quickly reported oil and gas fumes in their flooded basements, with some reporting feeling dizzy and nauseous. The local conditions, BP admitted, were “severe” with wailing sirens at the facility adding to the climate of fear for residents.“They had a real problem; they had to shut down. Who knows what happened,” says Carolyn Marsh, the administrator of the BP & Whiting Watch Facebook page, who lives within walking distance of the refinery.“The sludge they had to clean out of their system had to go through the water filtration plant [situated on the shore of Lake Michigan]. Who knows what they poured into Lake Michigan.”With the Trump administration dismantling emissions and other regulations for large polluting corporations in July, people living in close proximity to petroleum processing facilities are facing ever greater threats as climate crisis – fueled by burning the same fossil fuels produced by BP and others – promises to deliver increasingly severe storms and weather events.In a summer of relentless rain across parts of the midwest, scientists say heavy, short-lived storm events that can damage key infrastructure are likely to become a more common feature of life in a part of US thought to be relatively safe from the effects of climate crisis.In July, the Chicagoland region that encompasses Whiting recorded a ‘one-in-500-year’ flooding event that saw 5in of rain fall in 90 minutes in one area.According to the World Weather Attribution, climate crisis made storms and weather events that struck the midwest and south last April, killing dozens of people, 9% more intense.A reconnaissance inspection of the BP Whiting refinery conducted by the Indiana department of environmental management on 21 August found that “flood waters left significant oil on the ground”.The following day, the state of Indiana issued BP with a noncompliance notification report having found a “visible hydrocarbon sheen was observed … along 50 feet of [Lake Michigan] shoreline for a period of approximately 3 hours”. A lightning strike from the same storm also temporarily stopped the refinery’s dissolved nitrification floatation process, which reduced its ability to treat wastewater.A BP representative told the Guardian: “The Whiting refinery has detailed plans in place to manage severe weather conditions. We will incorporate learnings from the August rain event as we continue to improve the resiliency of our refinery operations during severe weather.”BP declined to respond to a query asking if the company plans to enact infrastructural upgrades to better protect against future extreme weather events such as floods and storms.Aside from the 19 August flooding causing oil to run into public waterways, BP was also forced to flare large amounts of fuel at the Whiting facility, resulting in huge volumes of damaging CO2, methane and other dangerous gases being released into the atmosphere.Like many of its kind, the Whiting facility has been plagued by issues.In 2008, BP initiated a $4.2bn project at the Whiting refinery to upgrade its infrastructure to process cheaper heavy crude from the Canadian oil sands.But in 2019, the Sierra Club successfully sued BP for violating deadly particle air pollution limits at the Whiting refinery that saw the fossil fuel company pay out $2.75m. BP’s annual revenue stands at $194.63bn.In August 2022, a fire caused the facility to shut down for a week and a half, resulting in a spike in fuel prices for millions of gas consumers around the region. In February 2024, the refinery was shut down again, due to a power outage, while last December, an underground gas pipeline leak was reported which required emergency crews at the scene and prompted a furious response from residents.“We woke up the day after Christmas and it smelled terrible. People were getting sick. There was no word from BP for days,” says Lisa Vallee of Just Transition Northwest Indiana, an environmental nonprofit, who lives in Whiting.“People were really, really upset. We went to our city council, and they said: ‘BP is not telling us anything either.’”Over the course of decades, BP has been responsible for some of the worst environmental catastrophes on the planet. In 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig spill caused the deaths of 11 people and the release of 3.2m to 4.9m barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico across an area the size of Florida over five months. It was the largest environmental disaster in US history and saw BP pay $4bn in criminal charges and a $20.8bn settlement fee. However, the latter generated a $15bn tax deduction for the oil giant.Oil refineries are particularly susceptible to storms and flooding, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, whose 2015 report also noted that “many of the companies that operate refineries are not disclosing these risks adequately to shareholders and local communities”.And yet, polling suggests climate change is not a concern for Republican voters, with just 12% of those surveyed in one poll last year saying climate crisis should be a top priority for the president and Congress.But fossil fuel conglomerates are not acting to protect communities around their facilities, say environmentalists.“We just cannot trust them,” says Vallee, whose basement flooded for the first time during the 19 August storm. “It’s a really old facility, and that is very frightening.”The Sierra Club settlement saw $500,000 given to the Student Conservation Program non-profit to plant trees around the refinery and in other parts of the community. However, one of the non-profit’s corporate partners is BP.Meanwhile, the refinery continues to loom large for residents of Whiting.“We’re concerned that it’s going to blow up,” says Marsh. “They’ve had way too many accidents over the last few years.

Climate
Conservation
Crisis

Suggested Viewing

Just Can't Stop!

a musical tribute to Exxon and climate change

Music
Crisis
Climate

Voices of Transition

Voices of Transition is an enthusiastic documentary on farmer- and community-led responses to food insecurity in a scenario of climate change, peak oil, and economic crisis. Concrete examples from Cuba, France, and the United Kingdom tell of a future society where our monoculture deserts will be restored to living soil, where fields will be introduced into our cities, and where independence from oil will help us live a richer, more fulfilling life.

Agriculture
Food
Climate

The Pleasure of Killing Bugs

In the near future, the climate crisis reaches an irreversible point. A nun and a priest meet to talk about the disappearance of insects.

Climate
Fiction
Student

Carbon Men Salvation: The Senator's Dilemma

Climate change is heating up the world at an accelerating rate, but Congress is frozen to action. Humanity is heading towards devastation; there is only one chance to change the future by traveling into the past. Brilliant climatologist student Anna Jones is researching a massive glacier in Antarctica that is on the verge of collapse. This disaster will drown coastal cities, trigger unprecedented climate refugee numbers and loss of life, while inciting wars. Anna’s father, Dan Jones, the newly elected Senator from New Jersey, is pivotal to the success or failure of a key climate bill. The vote is imminent. Powerful climate denier factions work against the necessary climate actions, even as the planet teeters on the prime tipping point where human behavior, science and legislation collide. Only Noah Poem, a time traveling scientist from the future, can help Anna Jones convince her climate doubting father to do the right thing. But time is running out as science fiction meets science fact. The fate of the human race hangs in the balance. One vote could save humanity.

Government
Climate
Activism

Beyond the Soil

Beyond the Soil is a short, poetic documentary which explores the emotional impact of climate change on farmers and ranchers who are on the frontlines of the megadrought in the Rocky Mountain West, and their innovation and resilience in the face of ecological crisis.

Climate
Food

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.