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.

Summer 2024 Was the Hottest Ever Measured, Beating Last Year

News Feed
Saturday, September 14, 2024

September 13, 20244 min readSummer 2024 Was the Hottest Ever Measured, Beating Last YearThe year 2024 could easily shape up to be the hottest ever measured, climate scientists sayBy Saima S. IqbalA man walks near the Las Vegas Strip during a heatwave in Las Vegas, Nev., on July 7, 2024. The U.S. National Weather Service forecasted that high temperatures could reach up to 117 degrees Fahrenheit (42 degrees Celsius) that day. Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty ImagesIn Japan more than 70,000 people visited emergency rooms for heat stroke this July and August alone. In Iran an unrelenting heat wave shuttered government agencies, banks and schools. And in the U.S. cities such as Phoenix, Ariz., and Las Vegas endured high temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) for weeks on end. These were just some of the markers of what European and American climate agencies have found to be the hottest June to August on record—and they offer a peek at how further warming could transform the planet.This new summer record, an average temperature of 62.2 degrees F (16.8 degrees C), beats out last summer’s extraordinarily high average by a narrow 0.05 degree F (0.03 degree C). Both constitute the highest two summer averages in annals that go back to 1850. But studies of ancient tree rings suggest that 2023’s temperature—and by extension 2024’s—were the hottest in the past 2,000 years. And some climate scientists calculate that these two years’ summer averages could even be the highest in 125,000 years; that far back in Earth’s history, hippos swam in the waters around Great Britain., and forests dotted the Arctic. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information now says there is a 97 percent chance that 2024 will beat 2023 as the hottest full year on record as well.A blistering June and August contributed in large part to this summer’s record. Both months broke or matched heat records from 2023, with average global surface area temperatures exceeding preindustrial levels by at least 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C). In 2016, under the Paris climate accords, countries agreed to try to keep global warming below this threshold—though that goal considers a multiyear average, not single months. Had July been a tad hotter, the planet could have laid claim to a 14-month streak of such threshold-passing temperatures. (July did see the hottest day on record, however: on July 22 the global average temperature reached 62.89 degrees F, or 17.16 degrees C, about three degrees F, or 1.7 degrees C, above preindustrial averages.) This year 15 countries ranging from Mexico to Chad reached all-time high temperatures; 130 national monthly records have also been broken.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Such a record of records reflects the magnitude of human-induced climate change. Global temperature records do cluster around El Niño events, the most recent of which began in late 2023 and ended in May 2024. This complex climate pattern leads to considerable heat being released from the tropical oceans into the atmosphere. But El Niño only contributes 0.36 degree F (0.2 degree C) of variation to the global temperature and alone could not produce the rapid changes the planet is now undergoing. “Human emissions of greenhouse gasses effectively add a permanent El Niño worth of heat every decade,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist who works for the nonprofit Breakthrough Institute. Other unknown factors appear to be in play as well, he notes, because scientists believe up to one third of the planet’s observed warming throughout 2023 and 2024 is not accounted for by human-made climate change or El Niño.Earth has endured more extreme temperatures in the past, but those extremes built up more gradually. “These are geological trends that usually take millions of years or thousands of years to happen,” says Angel Fernández-Bou, a biosystems engineer at the University of California, Merced. “Now that [same] increase of temperature happens over decades.” As a result, scientists worry that the planet is warming far too quickly for living things and their environments to adapt.Modern sewers, for instance, might not withstand the increasingly intense rains. Our body won’t be able to tolerate as much time outdoors—or indoors without air-conditioning—as heat waves grow more intense and frequent. Increasing wildfires are expected to raze thousands of acres of crops and grazing lands. And past adaptation measures have proven more slow going and costly than previously imagined, Hausfather points out.Though global and national temperature records offer clear signs of how much excess heat greenhouse gases have trapped in the atmosphere, real people do not live in average temperatures. Such measurements can mask wide regional variations and extremes. In the U.S. Southwest, successive summer heat domes created one of the hottest places on the planet: As of September 4, Phoenix had reached 100 degrees F for more than 100 days in a row. This blew the city’s previous record of 76 consecutive days, set in 1993, out of the water. A July heat wave burdened Olympic athletes in Paris, spread wildfires in Portugal and Greece and worsened water shortages in Italy and Spain. Even the Southern Hemisphere, where it was winter, sweltered throughout June to August. Across Australia, it often felt more like summer, with national temperatures 5.4 degrees F (three degrees C) above normal throughout August—and one remote region in Western Australia reaching a record of 107 degrees F (41.6 degrees C). In July regions of winter-bound Antarctica rose 50 degrees F (28 degrees C) above typical temperatures.The planet will continue to blast through heat records until humans stop producing greenhouse gases, says Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University. With renewable energy now cheaper than fossil fuels, the largest hurdle to meaningful action is not technological but political, he says. This means “the solution is in our grasp,” Dessler emphasizes.Greenhouse gas emissions have held steady over the past decade, at least preventing further acceleration of warming. Stopping global temperatures from rising even more, however, will require putting an end to emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from other sources such as deforestation and agriculture. Climate scientists now project that the planet will pass the 1.5-degree-C threshold set by the Paris accords later this decade or early next.“But it’s not like the climate goes from fine to on fire as soon as the world passes 1.5,” Hausfather emphasizes. “Every tenth of a degree matters; the higher the warming, the worse the impacts.”

The year 2024 could easily shape up to be the hottest ever measured, climate scientists say

September 13, 2024

4 min read

Summer 2024 Was the Hottest Ever Measured, Beating Last Year

The year 2024 could easily shape up to be the hottest ever measured, climate scientists say

By Saima S. Iqbal

Person reacting to heatwave in front of Las Vegas sign

A man walks near the Las Vegas Strip during a heatwave in Las Vegas, Nev., on July 7, 2024. The U.S. National Weather Service forecasted that high temperatures could reach up to 117 degrees Fahrenheit (42 degrees Celsius) that day.

Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

In Japan more than 70,000 people visited emergency rooms for heat stroke this July and August alone. In Iran an unrelenting heat wave shuttered government agencies, banks and schools. And in the U.S. cities such as Phoenix, Ariz., and Las Vegas endured high temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) for weeks on end. These were just some of the markers of what European and American climate agencies have found to be the hottest June to August on record—and they offer a peek at how further warming could transform the planet.

This new summer record, an average temperature of 62.2 degrees F (16.8 degrees C), beats out last summer’s extraordinarily high average by a narrow 0.05 degree F (0.03 degree C). Both constitute the highest two summer averages in annals that go back to 1850. But studies of ancient tree rings suggest that 2023’s temperature—and by extension 2024’s—were the hottest in the past 2,000 years. And some climate scientists calculate that these two years’ summer averages could even be the highest in 125,000 years; that far back in Earth’s history, hippos swam in the waters around Great Britain., and forests dotted the Arctic. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information now says there is a 97 percent chance that 2024 will beat 2023 as the hottest full year on record as well.

A blistering June and August contributed in large part to this summer’s record. Both months broke or matched heat records from 2023, with average global surface area temperatures exceeding preindustrial levels by at least 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C). In 2016, under the Paris climate accords, countries agreed to try to keep global warming below this threshold—though that goal considers a multiyear average, not single months. Had July been a tad hotter, the planet could have laid claim to a 14-month streak of such threshold-passing temperatures. (July did see the hottest day on record, however: on July 22 the global average temperature reached 62.89 degrees F, or 17.16 degrees C, about three degrees F, or 1.7 degrees C, above preindustrial averages.) This year 15 countries ranging from Mexico to Chad reached all-time high temperatures; 130 national monthly records have also been broken.


On supporting science journalism

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


Such a record of records reflects the magnitude of human-induced climate change. Global temperature records do cluster around El Niño events, the most recent of which began in late 2023 and ended in May 2024. This complex climate pattern leads to considerable heat being released from the tropical oceans into the atmosphere. But El Niño only contributes 0.36 degree F (0.2 degree C) of variation to the global temperature and alone could not produce the rapid changes the planet is now undergoing. “Human emissions of greenhouse gasses effectively add a permanent El Niño worth of heat every decade,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist who works for the nonprofit Breakthrough Institute. Other unknown factors appear to be in play as well, he notes, because scientists believe up to one third of the planet’s observed warming throughout 2023 and 2024 is not accounted for by human-made climate change or El Niño.

Earth has endured more extreme temperatures in the past, but those extremes built up more gradually. “These are geological trends that usually take millions of years or thousands of years to happen,” says Angel Fernández-Bou, a biosystems engineer at the University of California, Merced. “Now that [same] increase of temperature happens over decades.” As a result, scientists worry that the planet is warming far too quickly for living things and their environments to adapt.

Modern sewers, for instance, might not withstand the increasingly intense rains. Our body won’t be able to tolerate as much time outdoors—or indoors without air-conditioning—as heat waves grow more intense and frequent. Increasing wildfires are expected to raze thousands of acres of crops and grazing lands. And past adaptation measures have proven more slow going and costly than previously imagined, Hausfather points out.

Though global and national temperature records offer clear signs of how much excess heat greenhouse gases have trapped in the atmosphere, real people do not live in average temperatures. Such measurements can mask wide regional variations and extremes. In the U.S. Southwest, successive summer heat domes created one of the hottest places on the planet: As of September 4, Phoenix had reached 100 degrees F for more than 100 days in a row. This blew the city’s previous record of 76 consecutive days, set in 1993, out of the water. A July heat wave burdened Olympic athletes in Paris, spread wildfires in Portugal and Greece and worsened water shortages in Italy and Spain. Even the Southern Hemisphere, where it was winter, sweltered throughout June to August. Across Australia, it often felt more like summer, with national temperatures 5.4 degrees F (three degrees C) above normal throughout August—and one remote region in Western Australia reaching a record of 107 degrees F (41.6 degrees C). In July regions of winter-bound Antarctica rose 50 degrees F (28 degrees C) above typical temperatures.

The planet will continue to blast through heat records until humans stop producing greenhouse gases, says Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University. With renewable energy now cheaper than fossil fuels, the largest hurdle to meaningful action is not technological but political, he says. This means “the solution is in our grasp,” Dessler emphasizes.

Greenhouse gas emissions have held steady over the past decade, at least preventing further acceleration of warming. Stopping global temperatures from rising even more, however, will require putting an end to emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from other sources such as deforestation and agriculture. Climate scientists now project that the planet will pass the 1.5-degree-C threshold set by the Paris accords later this decade or early next.

“But it’s not like the climate goes from fine to on fire as soon as the world passes 1.5,” Hausfather emphasizes. “Every tenth of a degree matters; the higher the warming, the worse the impacts.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Solar and Wind Power Has Grown Faster Than Electricity Demand This Year, Report Says

A new analysis of solar and wind power shows its generation worldwide has outpaced electricity demand this year

Worldwide solar and wind power generation has outpaced electricity demand this year, and for the first time on record, renewable energies combined generated more power than coal, according to a new analysis.Global solar generation grew by a record 31% in the first half of the year, while wind generation grew by 7.7%, according to the report by the energy think tank Ember, which was released after midnight Tuesday London time. Solar and wind generation combined grew by more than 400 terawatt hours, which was more than overall global demand increased in the same period, it found.The findings suggest it is possible for the world to wean off polluting sources of power — even as demand for electricity skyrockets — with continued investment in renewables including solar, wind, hydropower, bioenergy and geothermal energies. “That means that they can keep up the pace with growing appetite for electricity worldwide,” said Małgorzata Wiatros-Motyka, senior electricity analyst at Ember and lead author of the study.At the same time, total fossil fuel generation dropped slightly, by less than 1%.“The fall overall of fossil may be small, but it is significant,” said Wiatros-Motyka. “This is a turning point when we see emissions plateauing."The firm analyzes monthly data from 88 countries representing the vast majority of electricity demand around the world. Reasons that demand is increasing include economic growth, electric vehicles and data centers, rising populations in developing countries and the need for more cooling as temperatures rise.Meeting that demand by burning fossil fuels such as coal and gas for electricity releases planet-warming gases including carbon dioxide and methane. This leads to more severe, costly and deadly extreme weather. Ember also dedicated part of its report to an analysis of China, India, the European Union and the U.S. Combined, they account for nearly two-thirds of electricity generation and carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector globally. In the first six months of the year, China added more solar and wind than the rest of the world combined, and its fossil fuel generation fell by 2%, the report said.India saw record solar and wind growth that outpaced the growth in demand. India's fossil fuel generation also dropped. In both nations, emissions fell.“It’s often been said by analysts that renewable energy doesn’t really lead to a reduction in fossil fuel use,” said Michael Gerrard, founder and director of the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, who was not involved in the report. “This report highlights an encouraging step in the opposite direction.” But in the U.S., demand growth outpaced the growth of clean power generation. In the E.U., sluggish wind and hydropower generation contributed to higher coal and gas generation, the report said. In both markets, fossil fuel generation and emissions increased.In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly last month, Trump attacked renewable energy and questioned the validity of the concept of climate change. Experts warn that Trump's efforts to block clean energy will have a long-term impact.“The federal government is greatly increasing the growth of artificial intelligence, which is going to massively increase electricity demand, and they’re also shutting down the cheapest new sources of electricity, wind and solar. That’s going to lead to a gap in supply and demand,” Gerrard said.Renewables “still have an opportunity to make inroads in to displacing fossil fuels, even with some demand growth,” said Amanda Smith, senior scientist at research organization Project Drawdown, who also wasn't involved in the report. But, Smith said: “I am very cautiously optimistic that renewables can continue to grow and continue to displace fossil fuels in the U.S. I am more optimistic on the world scale.”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

How CEOs are thinking about tackling political and social issues in today’s climate

Headwinds across the business world challenge any leader striving to make an impact beyond shareholder value. Few organizations know this struggle better than the B Team, born out of Richard Branson’s drive to elevate the role and responsibility of business in society. CEO Leah Seligmann shares why some leaders are pulling back, where others are pressing forward, and which actions can have the greatest impact—from climate change to diversity. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. I remember when [the B Team] came onto the scene. It was kind of this wave of business as a vehicle for social good and social impact and environmental impact. Recently, this ethos has been under pressure. I’m curious how surprised you’ve been by that. I think that the writing was on the wall for a while. But I think the feeling of CEOs is that we really need to re-own the narrative, re-own why we’re doing these things—because they’re good for business, they’re good for our communities—and get away from a lot of the narrative, the language, and the programs that left people behind. I get to work for this amazing group of global leaders. Half of them are from the business sector, half of them are from civil society, but their focus is really, How do we transform business? And I think we were all a little shell-shocked, to be honest, at the beginning of the year. When the attacks started happening, to have that happening and have CEOs really scared and unsure of what they can say or what they can do. I think what we’ve been spending the last couple of months on is thinking about how do you retake that and go to the things that you really have license to speak about and get a little bit away from [being] the CEO [who] has to stand up for everything all the time, which really was the place that we were a couple of years ago. I know you used the word courage a lot, the courage to speak out in the right places, the courage to act. The collective of the B Team is based on the idea that maybe it’s easier to be courageous when others are joining you. But we’re not seeing a lot of collective action these days, aside from fawning dinners at the White House from tech CEOs. How do you make that start to happen?  I think that the appetite to hear a bunch of people speaking out into the wind has really decreased. Those statements were useful. They served a purpose in raising awareness and this idea that sustainability and treating people well could be good for business. At this moment in time though, I think that it rings hollow. So the courage that we’re really looking for is a different type of courage. It’s more engaged. Figure out what people care about and why they’re worried about it and why what you’re saying isn’t landing, and then go from there. So I think that’s a significant shift. And I don’t want to undermine the idea that it actually takes courage to pause sometimes and to listen and to understand why you’ve missed your mark. That maybe is the hardest type of courage because we’re so wired towards action. There was a period where the trust for corporate leaders and CEOs was higher than any other figures in public life in a lot of ways, right? Do you have a sense about why that eroded? I think a big piece of it has to do with the pay gap between everyday working people. That growing inequality makes it really hard to feel like the person that you’ve put so much trust in actually sees your problems and is trying to make your life better. And so we still see employers and CEOs having high trust with their own employees, but this idea that business as a whole is a trusted institution has really eroded along with all of our institutions. Trust in government, trust in the news and the media, all of these things have been impacted by a crisis of trust.  The B Team recently announced a new strategy initiative. Lots of high-profile business leaders signed on as part of your group, from Marc Benioff at Salesforce to Hamdi Ulukaya at Chobani, and Ryan Gellert at Patagonia. Can you explain what the new strategy is?  I think the biggest piece is the pace. It used to be that you would have one major thing happen and everybody had time to get riled up and create opposition and drive things forward and create coalitions. And now we have multiple times a day things that are coming out that are shifting the landscape, and we need to be much more aware of and able to respond to the context that we’re in. The long-term goals of the B Team remain the same. How do we catalyze business to be a force for good in the world? But now we’re in a moment where every single day you have massive changes. One world order is ending, but we have yet to define or design the world order that we’re heading towards. And then the last piece is we’re in the middle of this incredible technology revolution. Technology isn’t good or bad, technology is potential. And we have businesses really trying to figure out how they harness the power of AI and minimize the downsides. So what we at the B Team decided is that we needed to get very clear on our values, very clear on our outcomes, and be much more nimble in our approach. And honestly, how can we stop being just a group that does a statement every six months and turn into a group that’s actually catalyzing real change? We’ve seen companies make climate pledges, not always delivering. We’ve got a U.S. administration that seems actively hostile to climate action. So what do you do?  Most leaders that act on climate see it as in their business interest. Business leaders that stick to the fundamentals of why we have to deal with climate, that doesn’t change with political cycles. The fact that your supply chain is going to be disrupted, that doesn’t shift with who’s in power politically. That’s where we need business leaders to step up and lean in. But also to remember that the reason they got into that game wasn’t because they thought it was going to be a nice PR story; you got into climate because you had to. I noticed that DEI isn’t particularly prioritized within the new B Team strategy. Was that conscious? The word itself might not be used, but the B Team is seeking to create workplaces that are open to all people because we have a strong belief, not just that everybody deserves an opportunity, but business thrives when it attracts the best talent. So it’s not a deprioritization. What does DEI even mean? What value does that acronym give us? I think it covers a huge ground of incredibly rich thinking and work and things that do need to stay in the workplace, but the label DEI just has led to a tremendous backsliding of a vicious unleashing of anti-people rhetoric. So yeah, I think that language does need to change. Many businesses, of course, are not part of the B Team collective. Is there something that those places and CEOs that aren’t part of the B Team have in common?  Our goal was always to be a small group, a group of leaders that we felt were really driving and pushing this agenda. The agenda is meant to be a broad agenda that could invite anyone in wherever they are, but that little cohort of 33 business leaders is not meant to represent everyone. The group that we have right now, they are in the rooms with so many other coalitions of CEOs and leaders that are trying to do something. And if they can use their role to weave things together, to lift the ambition of those efforts, I see that as success. And . . . ideally, no one would look back and be like, “The B Team did this.” They would be like, “A bunch of people all over the world did these different things,” and we created some positive change in the world. We don’t need credit. We should seek impact. It doesn’t matter to me if the B Team name is ever known.

Headwinds across the business world challenge any leader striving to make an impact beyond shareholder value. Few organizations know this struggle better than the B Team, born out of Richard Branson’s drive to elevate the role and responsibility of business in society. CEO Leah Seligmann shares why some leaders are pulling back, where others are pressing forward, and which actions can have the greatest impact—from climate change to diversity. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. I remember when [the B Team] came onto the scene. It was kind of this wave of business as a vehicle for social good and social impact and environmental impact. Recently, this ethos has been under pressure. I’m curious how surprised you’ve been by that. I think that the writing was on the wall for a while. But I think the feeling of CEOs is that we really need to re-own the narrative, re-own why we’re doing these things—because they’re good for business, they’re good for our communities—and get away from a lot of the narrative, the language, and the programs that left people behind. I get to work for this amazing group of global leaders. Half of them are from the business sector, half of them are from civil society, but their focus is really, How do we transform business? And I think we were all a little shell-shocked, to be honest, at the beginning of the year. When the attacks started happening, to have that happening and have CEOs really scared and unsure of what they can say or what they can do. I think what we’ve been spending the last couple of months on is thinking about how do you retake that and go to the things that you really have license to speak about and get a little bit away from [being] the CEO [who] has to stand up for everything all the time, which really was the place that we were a couple of years ago. I know you used the word courage a lot, the courage to speak out in the right places, the courage to act. The collective of the B Team is based on the idea that maybe it’s easier to be courageous when others are joining you. But we’re not seeing a lot of collective action these days, aside from fawning dinners at the White House from tech CEOs. How do you make that start to happen?  I think that the appetite to hear a bunch of people speaking out into the wind has really decreased. Those statements were useful. They served a purpose in raising awareness and this idea that sustainability and treating people well could be good for business. At this moment in time though, I think that it rings hollow. So the courage that we’re really looking for is a different type of courage. It’s more engaged. Figure out what people care about and why they’re worried about it and why what you’re saying isn’t landing, and then go from there. So I think that’s a significant shift. And I don’t want to undermine the idea that it actually takes courage to pause sometimes and to listen and to understand why you’ve missed your mark. That maybe is the hardest type of courage because we’re so wired towards action. There was a period where the trust for corporate leaders and CEOs was higher than any other figures in public life in a lot of ways, right? Do you have a sense about why that eroded? I think a big piece of it has to do with the pay gap between everyday working people. That growing inequality makes it really hard to feel like the person that you’ve put so much trust in actually sees your problems and is trying to make your life better. And so we still see employers and CEOs having high trust with their own employees, but this idea that business as a whole is a trusted institution has really eroded along with all of our institutions. Trust in government, trust in the news and the media, all of these things have been impacted by a crisis of trust.  The B Team recently announced a new strategy initiative. Lots of high-profile business leaders signed on as part of your group, from Marc Benioff at Salesforce to Hamdi Ulukaya at Chobani, and Ryan Gellert at Patagonia. Can you explain what the new strategy is?  I think the biggest piece is the pace. It used to be that you would have one major thing happen and everybody had time to get riled up and create opposition and drive things forward and create coalitions. And now we have multiple times a day things that are coming out that are shifting the landscape, and we need to be much more aware of and able to respond to the context that we’re in. The long-term goals of the B Team remain the same. How do we catalyze business to be a force for good in the world? But now we’re in a moment where every single day you have massive changes. One world order is ending, but we have yet to define or design the world order that we’re heading towards. And then the last piece is we’re in the middle of this incredible technology revolution. Technology isn’t good or bad, technology is potential. And we have businesses really trying to figure out how they harness the power of AI and minimize the downsides. So what we at the B Team decided is that we needed to get very clear on our values, very clear on our outcomes, and be much more nimble in our approach. And honestly, how can we stop being just a group that does a statement every six months and turn into a group that’s actually catalyzing real change? We’ve seen companies make climate pledges, not always delivering. We’ve got a U.S. administration that seems actively hostile to climate action. So what do you do?  Most leaders that act on climate see it as in their business interest. Business leaders that stick to the fundamentals of why we have to deal with climate, that doesn’t change with political cycles. The fact that your supply chain is going to be disrupted, that doesn’t shift with who’s in power politically. That’s where we need business leaders to step up and lean in. But also to remember that the reason they got into that game wasn’t because they thought it was going to be a nice PR story; you got into climate because you had to. I noticed that DEI isn’t particularly prioritized within the new B Team strategy. Was that conscious? The word itself might not be used, but the B Team is seeking to create workplaces that are open to all people because we have a strong belief, not just that everybody deserves an opportunity, but business thrives when it attracts the best talent. So it’s not a deprioritization. What does DEI even mean? What value does that acronym give us? I think it covers a huge ground of incredibly rich thinking and work and things that do need to stay in the workplace, but the label DEI just has led to a tremendous backsliding of a vicious unleashing of anti-people rhetoric. So yeah, I think that language does need to change. Many businesses, of course, are not part of the B Team collective. Is there something that those places and CEOs that aren’t part of the B Team have in common?  Our goal was always to be a small group, a group of leaders that we felt were really driving and pushing this agenda. The agenda is meant to be a broad agenda that could invite anyone in wherever they are, but that little cohort of 33 business leaders is not meant to represent everyone. The group that we have right now, they are in the rooms with so many other coalitions of CEOs and leaders that are trying to do something. And if they can use their role to weave things together, to lift the ambition of those efforts, I see that as success. And . . . ideally, no one would look back and be like, “The B Team did this.” They would be like, “A bunch of people all over the world did these different things,” and we created some positive change in the world. We don’t need credit. We should seek impact. It doesn’t matter to me if the B Team name is ever known.

The EPA is ending greenhouse gas data collection. Who will step up to fill the gap?

With the agency no longer collecting emissions data from polluting companies, attention is turning to whether climate NGOs have the tools—and legal right—to fulfill this EPA function.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced earlier this month that it would stop making polluting companies report their greenhouse gas emissions to it, eliminating a crucial tool the US uses to track emissions and form climate policy. Climate NGOs say their work could help plug some of the data gap, but they and other experts fear the EPA’s work can’t be fully matched. “I don’t think this system can be fully replaced,” says Joseph Goffman, the former assistant administrator at the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “I think it could be approximated—but it’s going to take time.” The Clean Air Act requires states to collect data on local pollution levels, which states then turn over to the federal government. For the past 15 years, the EPA has also collected data on carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases from sources around the country that emit over a certain threshold of emissions. This program is known as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) and “is really the backbone of the air quality reporting system in the United States,” says Kevin Gurney, a professor of atmospheric science at Northern Arizona University. Like a myriad of other data-collection processes that have been stalled or halted since the start of this year, the Trump administration has put this program in the crosshairs. In March, the EPA announced it would be reconsidering the GHGRP program entirely. In September, the agency trotted out a proposed rule to eliminate reporting obligations from sources ranging from power plants to oil and gas refineries to chemical facilities—all major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. (The agency claims that rolling back the GHGRP will save $2.4 billion in regulatory costs, and that the program is “nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality.”) Joseph says shutting down this program hamstrings “the government’s basic practical capacity to formulate climate policy.” Understanding how new emissions-reduction technologies are working, or surveying which industries are decarbonizing and which are not, “is extremely hard to do if you don’t have this data.” Read Next Trump administration gives coal plants and chemical facilities a pass Elena Bruess, Capital & Main Data collected by the GHGRP, which is publicly available, underpins much of federal climate policy: understanding which sectors are contributing which kinds of emissions is the first step in forming strategies to draw those emissions down. This data is also the backbone of much of international US climate policy: collection of greenhouse gas emissions data is mandated by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which undergirds the Paris Agreement. (While the US exited the Paris Agreement for the second time on the first day of Trump’s second term, it remains—tenuously—a part of the UNFCCC.) Data collected by the GHGRP is also crucial to state and local climate policies, helping policymakers outside the federal government take stock of local pollution, form emissions-reductions goals, and track progress on bringing down emissions. There’s some hope that nongovernmental actors could help. In recent years, various groups have stepped up to the table to help calculate greenhouse gas emissions from sources both in the US and nationwide. These groups use a mix of federal, state, industry, and private data—from oil and gas industry databases to public and private satellites to federal data like what the EPA provides—to create tools that help policymakers and the public understand where greenhouse gas emissions are coming from, and how they impact people in various ways. Technology has also grown leaps and bounds, too, as artificial intelligence models are getting more advanced at both tracking and modeling emissions from different sources. In the days since the EPA’s announcement, groups collecting and modeling emissions data say that they are fielding calls from various stakeholders trying to figure out solutions if the EPA revokes the program. Goffman, who left the EPA at the start of this year, says that there are staff within the agency looking to “connect or become part of university efforts” to continue data collection. One of the most high-profile efforts in nongovernmental emissions modeling is a coalition called Climate TRACE, which was founded in 2019, following a donation from Google, to observe global emissions using satellites. The group, which has since grown to more than 100 collaborating organizations, has developed a host of AI models that they pair with data from various sources to track and model emissions from around the world. Read Next Trump’s EPA is attacking its own power to fight climate change Kate Yoder There’s a dark timing, says cofounder Gavin McCormick, in having the EPA move to end the GHGRP after Climate TRACE has built its models relying so heavily on EPA data. “We started this project on the thesis that America has the world’s best emissions monitoring, and other countries could reduce emissions faster if they got up to the same quality as America,” McCormick says. “We just spent five years building this AI system to try to make it possible for other countries to have an approximation of the same system America has.” It’s not just the climate-conscious who are worried about the future of this data: there’s significant industry interest in continuing to collect national data on greenhouse gas emissions. Just because the US government is no longer invested in tracking climate change doesn’t mean the rest of the world is on board. Oil and gas companies with facilities in the US, for instance, still have a financial interest to keep track of their emissions if they’re selling to other markets—like Europe, which is beginning to impose strict methane requirements on gas imported into the bloc. “Our phones have been blowing up over the last ten days or so, from people saying, ‘Should we start reporting to you now? You’re not an official source, but you’re the closest thing there is,’” says McCormick. “It’s not obvious to me that we are the right vehicle for that. But there are very clear business interests in why companies would want to continue reporting even though they don’t have to.” Private industry data could also be used to help track greenhouse gas emissions—and even covers some emissions that aren’t captured in the EPA data. The Rocky Mountain Institute, for instance, a nonprofit that works on market-based climate solutions, runs an index based on private industry data that tracks emissions from across the oil and gas production cycle. (RMI is part of the Climate TRACE coalition.) This private data enables this index to have insights into emissions from the industry that the GHGRP may have missed or undercalculated—including calculating emissions from sources that don’t meet the cutoff for reporting. Still, all experts WIRED spoke to stressed that ending GHGRP data collection would severely hobble US efforts to measure and combat greenhouse gas emissions, no matter how good the non-federal options are. There’s a myriad of difficulties that face any organization that tries to take on this monumental task. Read Next Trump’s 2-year reprieve gives coal plants ‘a free pass to pollute’ Terry L. Jones, Floodlight “If the EPA stopped requiring this, it’s entirely possible that states will continue to do it,” says Gurney. But, he says, “there is no [other] central warehouse to do the collating. Fifty entities turning in data files, which are massively complex, is just a huge endeavor. The EPA plays such an important role as this kind of data arbiter, ensuring that it’s all complying with standardization. That’s key for the rest of us, frankly, to not have to do that ourselves, which would be pretty much a prohibitive barrier for us to be able to make sense of that amount of data.” There are many different ways to calculate emissions; the techniques used to collect and model data can also differ between different organizations and experts. Gurney, for instance, has been a vocal critic of the way Climate TRACE designs its models. The EPA’s pollution reporting requirements, meanwhile, are also backed by law: “A nongovernmental entity really can’t require that,” Goffman says. There’s also an open question of whether nongovernmental estimates could hold up legally, especially if a policy formed using these estimates is challenged in court. In Louisiana, a law passed last year seriously restricts the ability of communities to use low-cost emissions-monitoring devices to track air quality and bring complaints or lawsuits about emissions violations; air monitoring must now be solely done by EPA-approved tools. (Groups who advocate for communities living near oil and gas facilities filed a lawsuit in May, saying that the tools are prohibitively expensive for local advocates and claiming the law is a “blatant violation of the free speech rights of community members to use their own independent air pollution monitoring to raise alarms about deadly chemicals being released into their own homes and schools.”) That law “really drove home to me that this is only partly a scientific and do-you-have-the-data question, and partly an are-you-legally-allowed-to-use-that-dataset question,” says McCormick. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The EPA is ending greenhouse gas data collection. Who will step up to fill the gap? on Oct 5, 2025.

Uprooted review – the female fightback against the exploitation of Latin America

New Diorama theatre, LondonEphemeral Ensemble’s atmospheric but unfocused follow-up to Rewind depicts the west’s ecologically ruinous colonisation of Latin America from a feminist perspectiveThe previous show devised by the international theatre company Ephemeral Ensemble was subtle, horrifying and exhilarating: Rewind, about Latin America’s “disappeared”, landed a punch straight to the gut and was, for me, one of last year’s most memorable plays. Director Ramon Ayres employs a similarly striking blend of sound, visual effects and physicality in Uprooted, but the story does not quite cohere, despite some individually superlative scenes.The drama is once again set in Latin America, and this time depicts the advent of western imperialism and its ruinous effects on ecology, indigenous life and the climate. Deviser-performers Eyglo Belafonte, Josephine Tremelling, Louise Wilcox and Vanessa Guevara Flores give spirited performances, and there is an overarching eco-feminist message that connects gendered violence to the rape and exploitation of the land. Continue reading...

The previous show devised by the international theatre company Ephemeral Ensemble was subtle, horrifying and exhilarating: Rewind, about Latin America’s “disappeared”, landed a punch straight to the gut and was, for me, one of last year’s most memorable plays. Director Ramon Ayres employs a similarly striking blend of sound, visual effects and physicality in Uprooted, but the story does not quite cohere, despite some individually superlative scenes.The drama is once again set in Latin America, and this time depicts the advent of western imperialism and its ruinous effects on ecology, indigenous life and the climate. Deviser-performers Eyglo Belafonte, Josephine Tremelling, Louise Wilcox and Vanessa Guevara Flores give spirited performances, and there is an overarching eco-feminist message that connects gendered violence to the rape and exploitation of the land.Musical compositions by Alex Paton, who sits on a raised platform on one side of the stage, certainly carry great levels of drama. Marco Curcio’s magnificent sound design adds ambience, embroidering bird-sounds with the babble of streams, the sound of chainsaws and earth-rattling rumbles. Tremelling’s lighting design is wondrous too, using miniature models of houses lit up from the inside to depict displacement, and shadow-play from within a recycling bin, as well as imaginatively using of wind-machine and muslin to depict rippling water and, at one point, a thunderous landslide.Martian-like occupiers … Louise Wilcox and Ephemeral Ensemble. Photograph: Tristram Kenton/The GuardianBut despite this stagecraft and immersive atmosphere, there is little specificity to the story and minimal character building. Characters fight against the colonial destruction of their land and are angry, but they are almost as faceless as the occupiers, who wear martian-like metal facemasks.Uprooted touches on more issues that it can possibly do justice to within its hour-long duration, from female activism against colonialism and climate disaster to child labour, economic disruption to local communities, violence against women and more.It is frustrating that the script seems so generic in its messages and didactic in its delivery. Indigenous people fought and resisted western occupiers, we hear, and one defender of the land is still killed every other day. A quiz delivers more facts and figures. Strident statements are made about the centrality of the earth, progress versus plunder, and hopelessness being a luxury we cannot afford in the fight against environmental catastrophe. But they sound generalising and familiar. Where Rewind led with specificity to evoke intense emotion, this is a disjointed screed that leaves you impressed yet oddly unmoved.

Climate Scientists Raise a Middle Finger to Trump’s Censorship Efforts

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Researchers across the United States and the world who raced to protect climate data, public reports and other information from the Trump administration’s budget cuts, firings, and scrubbing of federal websites are launching their own climate information portals. […]

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Researchers across the United States and the world who raced to protect climate data, public reports and other information from the Trump administration’s budget cuts, firings, and scrubbing of federal websites are launching their own climate information portals. A group of scientists and other experts who formerly worked for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently launched Climate.us, where they eventually hope to replicate much of the public-oriented climate content from Climate.gov.  In a parallel effort, two major scientific institutions, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, have started soliciting studies for a special “Climate Collection” to maintain momentum on the work that was already under way on a Congressionally mandated 6th National Climate Assessment, due in 2028, before all the scientists working on the report were fired and cabinet-level team that led the effort disbanded. “It’s unbelievable…We were literally forced to word search our own website and take down articles because they didn’t want to read the word ‘equity’ “ The new efforts demonstrate how difficult it is to erase or obscure climate science from the public in an era when thousands of scientists and computers around the world are continuously calculating and measuring climate and greenhouse gas emissions. Other science rescue efforts have focused on preserving those data sets, but the public-facing portals are also important, experts said. Current efforts by the US government to make it harder for people to get scientific information are a clear-cut case of censorship, said Haley Crim, currently a climate solutions researcher at MIT and one of the leaders of an effort to restore important climate information that officials in the Trump administration purged from federal websites. Along with significant funding and personnel cuts to various federal climate programs and other scientific efforts, some scientists report facing increased harassment and threats online. Others worry that misleading, inaccurate and potentially dangerous misinformation is being posted on official government websites. Gaining traction for new climate websites can be a challenge in a world filled with misleading and false scientific information, but the latest efforts have endorsements from leading scientists and scientific institutions. And the researchers working on the science preservation and restoration efforts say that, in the long run, the projects may result in new ways to store and share scientific information, and perhaps even better ways to make that information more relevant to the growing number of people experiencing deadly and disruptive climate impacts in the US and around the world.  During her last few months working on the Climate.gov website, Crim said she was ordered to remove articles mentioning diversity and other terms identified by political appointees. The altered version of the website remains online, but its future beyond the end of this year is uncertain.  A NOAA spokesperson said that changes to Climate.gov were made in compliance with an executive order, and that all research products from climate.gov will be relocated to Noaa.gov to “centralize and consolidate resources.” “It’s unbelievable, and it is censorship, and I think people were afraid to say that for a long time,” Crim said. “We were literally forced to word search our own website and take down articles because they didn’t want to read the word ‘equity’, or other related terms.” The administration could still use Climate.gov to publish misleading information, like a recent debunked climate report from Trump’s DOE. On top of the censorship, Crim said she and others working on the new website fear that the Trump administration could lash out at them or their institutions, but she said she won’t be intimidated. “There’s no other option for me,” she said. “I can’t sit back and watch this stuff be taken down because someone didn’t like it. It is state-of-the-art climate information and I’m not just going to let that go away.” Any mentions of climate justice were also purged, said former Climate.gov editor Rebecca Lindsey, who is now working on the effort to restore the deleted information on the new website, Climate.us.  So far, a handful of people are coordinating the effort publicly, with dozens of others volunteering behind the scenes. The long-term goal is to ensure there is as complete a backup as possible, including censored material, if Climate.gov goes offline. “They removed anything about trying to increase diversity in the sciences, and the fact that the impacts of human-caused climate change are going to be disproportionately felt by people who are already marginalized,” Lindsey said, adding that the team wants to revive that potentially life-saving information. Through mid-September, crowdfunding efforts have enabled the volunteers to launch their new website and, in a big step, to post the Fifth National Climate Assessment.  The NCA5, published in 2023, is the most comprehensive federal report on human-caused warming and its impacts and serves as a critical resource for communities facing wildfires, rising sea levels and other climate-related challenges. It was relegated to an archival website in June when the administration shut down the interagency US Global Change Research Program, which had a congressional mandate to produce the report. In a worst-case scenario, Lindsey added, the administration could use the popular Climate.gov portal to publish deliberately misleading information, like a recent debunked climate report from the US Department of Energy. To establish the new website’s credibility, the team plans to partner with authoritative institutions, such as the World Meteorological Organization and the American Meteorological Society, and recruit an independent science advisory panel for expert review and oversight, she said. Parallel to the efforts to re-create the Climate.gov information portal, the AGU and the AMS are working to ensure that climate information relevant to the United States’ interests is being properly cataloged in a format that could be used in a future national climate assessment. Their project compensates for the potential discontinuation of work on a new congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment scheduled for 2028. The Trump administration defunded the interagency team and dismissed the scientists working on the assessment in April. A federal task force coordinated the National Climate Assessment, but the new US climate collection will be more of a grassroots project, as the peer-reviewed contributions help define its shape.  Working “outside the federal fence” could open avenues for climate communications that weren’t previously an option.” “One of the things that we in the broader science community can do in this moment is do what we do best, and that’s peer-reviewed, rigorous science,” said Costa Samaras, director of the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation and trustee professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, who is helping to coordinate the collection. “Information about how climate affects communities and resources is essential for both public understanding and for public and private decision making,” he said.  The collection can be a beacon for the scientific community to submit “high-quality, rigorous scientific research around climate that can be peer-reviewed and widely shared for free,” he said, “in a way that helps, our broader understanding of these issues, especially as climate impacts accelerate.” He said some of the research likely will focus on questions like where extreme rains will lead to flooding in coming decades, and where sea level rise may take unexpectedly big bites out of coastal communities, as well as studies looking at overall ecosystem impacts and community impacts, with an eye toward how climate impacts “disproportionately affects marginalized communities, both here and around the world,” he said.  Co-organizer Bob Kopp, a climate researcher at Rutgers University who has also participated in several other major national and international climate assessments, said there has been significant research on systemic climate impacts that could be part of the collection, including effects on insurance and real estate markets, and how climate impacts strain municipal health infrastructure. Additionally, he said assessments of carbon dioxide removal and other negative-emissions technologies would be useful. There are, for example, a lot of ways to think about climate impacts and climate solutions that “relate to the education sector, the IT sector, or the legal system. I personally would love to see things that haven’t been assessed as much,” he said. “New synthesis papers could really lay the groundwork for future assessments.” Lindsey, the former NOAA contractor now working on the new public climate information portal, climate.us, said that working “outside the federal fence” could open avenues for climate communications that weren’t previously an option for the federal agency, including posting information about global warming and carbon dioxide mitigation, which was not part of the mission of the climate.gov website, she said. “We see this as an opportunity to diversify our support, to get out from under potential political interference,” she said.

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.