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.

What defines a heat wave? The answer could decide where disaster dollars go.

News Feed
Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Another brutal summer is shattering temperature records, broiling over a third of Americans under extended heat advisories. As smoke from wildfires begins to choke skies and death counts tick upwards, affected states say they need more help from the federal government.  During most climate-driven emergencies, such as hurricanes or floods, local governments can rely on the Federal Emergency Management Agency to fund relief efforts. But heat waves and wildfire smoke aren’t explicitly listed as “major disasters” under the law that empowers FEMA to administer emergency aid and don’t fit neatly within the disaster-declaration process — leaving affected communities without a clear pathway to access funds. Recently, in response, states and advocacy groups have been pressuring FEMA to treat heat waves and wildfire smoke as the major disasters they are.  Part of the problem comes down to semantics, and how climate-impacted events are addressed — or, more precisely, not addressed — in a 1988 law called the Stafford Act, which authorizes FEMA to administer a wide range of assistance to local and state governments following a major disaster declaration from the president. Despite listing 16 specific disasters that qualify for this declaration and the funding it unlocks, neither heat waves nor wildfire smoke are mentioned in the text of the law. FEMA says that dangerous heat and smoke from wildfires could still qualify for major disaster declarations under what the Stafford Act refers to broadly as “any natural catastrophe.” But only three major disaster-declaration requests for heat have ever been made — all of which were rejected. Still, the agency insists heat waves and wildfire smoke are given the same level of consideration as any other disaster. “We take every severe weather event on a case-by-case basis to understand what the impacts are to the community and what they might need from the federal government,” said FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell in an interview with Grist. But, she added, states need to demonstrate that they’re unable to shoulder the costs on their own before FEMA will step in.  Clearing that bar hasn’t been easy, as states may struggle to make use of the funds they already have. Last summer, for example, the governor of Arizona declared a state of emergency following a statewide extreme heat event, freeing up $200,000 through the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs to help reimburse local governments for their expenses. In the end, less than 1 percent of that money was spent, due to difficulty documenting costs associated with heat, complicated rules, and poor timing.  “Our disaster framework is really geared toward protecting property and counting up damages to property,” said Juanita Constible, a senior climate and health advocate at the National Resources Defense Council. She said that because of the diffuse way heat harms human health, it’s tough to put a price tag on the toll on a community, and the death count isn’t always clear until the worst of the summer is over. Unlike the calculable wreckage of hurricanes or floods, proving financial losses from heat with health data is “much more challenging,” she said. “There’s no quick way of tallying up the damages and demonstrating, ‘This was way too hard for us, we need your help stat,’” Constible said. She added that FEMA requires clear and specific data that documents expenses incurred during a heat wave or smoke event, which is difficult for states to provide using existing tools meant to track impacts from heat or smoke. Tourists find shade from the sun at a cooling station, which blows cold air-conditioning and sells water, at the Hoover Dam in Boulder City, Nevada, during a heat wave in June. Jim Watson / AFP via Getty Images Another roadblock to accessing federal aid in the wake of a heat wave or wildfire smoke is determining exactly when an event begins and ends. Whereas some disasters happen in a single powerful event, like an earthquake or a tornado, high temperatures and smoky skies can drag on for weeks. Because of this, said Constible, heat does not “fit nicely” within a typical disaster declaration process.  As climate change fuels more intense, prolonged heat waves that kill more people than any other kind of weather event, cities like Phoenix could end up losing billions of dollars per year from infrastructure damage and the loss of life and workforce productivity. Last year, over 600 people died from heat in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, and by mid-July this year, dozens more residents had suffered the same fate.  Pressure for FEMA to make a change to how it approves disaster aid is mounting. Last month, a multistate coalition of environmental, labor, and health organizations filed a petition to the agency, asking for amended rules that explicitly recognize extreme heat and wildfire smoke as major disasters and clear the way for getting funding requests approved. It also detailed how funding from a major disaster declaration could be used to mitigate the harmful effects of heat and wildfire smoke.  That initiative was followed last week by a July 16 letter from attorneys general in 13 states and Washington, D.C., in support of the petition. Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, who signed the letter, said in a statement to Grist: “We need the federal government to keep up with the realities Oregonians face, and we need FEMA to have the jurisdiction to assist when we ask for help.”  Earlier this month, lawmakers Dina Titus of Arizona and Greg Stanton of Nevada — U.S. representatives from two of the hottest and hardest-hit states — introduced a bill that expands how FEMA can respond to these events. Read Next FEMA to overhaul its disaster aid system after decades of criticism Jake Bittle “This is truly a crisis and yet we don’t see leadership from any agency or local government or state in dealing with it comprehensively,” said Jean Su, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which spearheaded the June petition.  In addition to emergency response measures like cooling tents and evacuation services, Su said unlocking major disaster funding would allow states to mitigate the harm from heat and smoke by investing in a myriad of long-term solutions, including air conditioners in homes and air-filtration systems in schools. The coalition said that with the support from a major disaster declaration, these solutions have the potential to save billions of dollars and many lives. On the other hand, Criswell said that even without major disaster declarations, FEMA provides funding for mitigation efforts and that states are knowledgeable about these programs. In 2020, for example, the agency began the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which helps states upgrade infrastructure to withstand disasters, including heat. “A lot of what they were stating are really things that we’re already doing,” she told Grist in reference to the petition. But as climate change causes more calamities, FEMA may not have the disaster funding to spare. A report in May found that if this year’s Atlantic hurricanes are as intense as predicted — and with this month’s history-making Hurricane Beryl, that seems to be the case — the agency could be $6.8 billion over budget by September. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What defines a heat wave? The answer could decide where disaster dollars go. on Jul 24, 2024.

With heat waves and wildfire smoke emergencies increasing, there's not always a clear pathway for states to access federal aid.

Another brutal summer is shattering temperature records, broiling over a third of Americans under extended heat advisories. As smoke from wildfires begins to choke skies and death counts tick upwards, affected states say they need more help from the federal government. 

During most climate-driven emergencies, such as hurricanes or floods, local governments can rely on the Federal Emergency Management Agency to fund relief efforts. But heat waves and wildfire smoke aren’t explicitly listed as “major disasters” under the law that empowers FEMA to administer emergency aid and don’t fit neatly within the disaster-declaration process — leaving affected communities without a clear pathway to access funds. Recently, in response, states and advocacy groups have been pressuring FEMA to treat heat waves and wildfire smoke as the major disasters they are. 

Part of the problem comes down to semantics, and how climate-impacted events are addressed — or, more precisely, not addressed — in a 1988 law called the Stafford Act, which authorizes FEMA to administer a wide range of assistance to local and state governments following a major disaster declaration from the president. Despite listing 16 specific disasters that qualify for this declaration and the funding it unlocks, neither heat waves nor wildfire smoke are mentioned in the text of the law.

FEMA says that dangerous heat and smoke from wildfires could still qualify for major disaster declarations under what the Stafford Act refers to broadly as “any natural catastrophe.” But only three major disaster-declaration requests for heat have ever been made — all of which were rejected. Still, the agency insists heat waves and wildfire smoke are given the same level of consideration as any other disaster.

“We take every severe weather event on a case-by-case basis to understand what the impacts are to the community and what they might need from the federal government,” said FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell in an interview with Grist. But, she added, states need to demonstrate that they’re unable to shoulder the costs on their own before FEMA will step in. 

Clearing that bar hasn’t been easy, as states may struggle to make use of the funds they already have. Last summer, for example, the governor of Arizona declared a state of emergency following a statewide extreme heat event, freeing up $200,000 through the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs to help reimburse local governments for their expenses. In the end, less than 1 percent of that money was spent, due to difficulty documenting costs associated with heat, complicated rules, and poor timing. 

“Our disaster framework is really geared toward protecting property and counting up damages to property,” said Juanita Constible, a senior climate and health advocate at the National Resources Defense Council. She said that because of the diffuse way heat harms human health, it’s tough to put a price tag on the toll on a community, and the death count isn’t always clear until the worst of the summer is over. Unlike the calculable wreckage of hurricanes or floods, proving financial losses from heat with health data is “much more challenging,” she said.

“There’s no quick way of tallying up the damages and demonstrating, ‘This was way too hard for us, we need your help stat,’” Constible said. She added that FEMA requires clear and specific data that documents expenses incurred during a heat wave or smoke event, which is difficult for states to provide using existing tools meant to track impacts from heat or smoke.

People standing in the shade at a cooling station at the Hoover Dam in Nevada
Tourists find shade from the sun at a cooling station, which blows cold air-conditioning and sells water, at the Hoover Dam in Boulder City, Nevada, during a heat wave in June. Jim Watson / AFP via Getty Images

Another roadblock to accessing federal aid in the wake of a heat wave or wildfire smoke is determining exactly when an event begins and ends. Whereas some disasters happen in a single powerful event, like an earthquake or a tornado, high temperatures and smoky skies can drag on for weeks. Because of this, said Constible, heat does not “fit nicely” within a typical disaster declaration process. 

As climate change fuels more intense, prolonged heat waves that kill more people than any other kind of weather event, cities like Phoenix could end up losing billions of dollars per year from infrastructure damage and the loss of life and workforce productivity. Last year, over 600 people died from heat in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, and by mid-July this year, dozens more residents had suffered the same fate. 

Pressure for FEMA to make a change to how it approves disaster aid is mounting. Last month, a multistate coalition of environmental, labor, and health organizations filed a petition to the agency, asking for amended rules that explicitly recognize extreme heat and wildfire smoke as major disasters and clear the way for getting funding requests approved. It also detailed how funding from a major disaster declaration could be used to mitigate the harmful effects of heat and wildfire smoke. 

That initiative was followed last week by a July 16 letter from attorneys general in 13 states and Washington, D.C., in support of the petition. Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, who signed the letter, said in a statement to Grist: “We need the federal government to keep up with the realities Oregonians face, and we need FEMA to have the jurisdiction to assist when we ask for help.” 

Earlier this month, lawmakers Dina Titus of Arizona and Greg Stanton of Nevada — U.S. representatives from two of the hottest and hardest-hit states — introduced a bill that expands how FEMA can respond to these events.

“This is truly a crisis and yet we don’t see leadership from any agency or local government or state in dealing with it comprehensively,” said Jean Su, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which spearheaded the June petition. 

In addition to emergency response measures like cooling tents and evacuation services, Su said unlocking major disaster funding would allow states to mitigate the harm from heat and smoke by investing in a myriad of long-term solutions, including air conditioners in homes and air-filtration systems in schools. The coalition said that with the support from a major disaster declaration, these solutions have the potential to save billions of dollars and many lives.

On the other hand, Criswell said that even without major disaster declarations, FEMA provides funding for mitigation efforts and that states are knowledgeable about these programs. In 2020, for example, the agency began the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which helps states upgrade infrastructure to withstand disasters, including heat. “A lot of what they were stating are really things that we’re already doing,” she told Grist in reference to the petition.

But as climate change causes more calamities, FEMA may not have the disaster funding to spare. A report in May found that if this year’s Atlantic hurricanes are as intense as predicted — and with this month’s history-making Hurricane Beryl, that seems to be the case — the agency could be $6.8 billion over budget by September.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What defines a heat wave? The answer could decide where disaster dollars go. on Jul 24, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label.

Advocates say a recent settlement is a ‘win’ in the fight to hold industrial ag giants accountable.

Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket — and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial farms in order to sell burgers, steak, and other beef products. Beef production results in two and a half times as many greenhouse gases as lamb, and almost nine times as many as chicken or fish; its carbon footprint relative to other sources of protein, like cheese, eggs, and tofu, is even higher.  If you want to have a lighter impact on the planet, you could try eating less beef. (Just try it!) Otherwise, a series of recent lawsuits intends make it easier for consumers to discern what’s sustainable and what’s greenwashing — by challenging the world’s largest meat processors on their climate messaging. Tyson, which produces 20 percent of beef, chicken, and pork in the United States, has agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 and to stop referring to beef products as “climate smart” unless verified by an independent expert.  Tyson was sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group alleged that Tyson’s claims were false and misleading to consumers. (Nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the suit.  “We landed in a place that feels satisfying in terms of what we were able to get from the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case. According to the settlement provided by Earthjustice, over the next five years, Tyson cannot repeat previous claims that the company has a plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or make new ones unless they are verified by a third-party source. Similarly, Tyson also cannot market or sell any beef products labeled as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States. “We think that this provides the consumer protections we were seeking from the lawsuit,” said Apfel.  The settlement is “a critical win for the fight against climate greenwashing by industrial agriculture,” according to Leila Yow, climate program associate at the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on sustainable food systems.  In the original complaint, filed in D.C. Superior Court, EWG alleged that Tyson had never even defined “climate smart beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Now Tyson and EWG must meet to agree on a third-party expert that would independently verify any of the meat processor’s future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims.  Following the settlement, Apfel went a step further in a conversation with Grist, arguing that the term “climate smart” has no business describing beef that comes from an industrial food system.  “In the context of industrial beef production, it’s an oxymoron,” said the attorney. “You just can’t have climate-smart beef. Beef is the highest-emitting major food type that there is. Even if you were to reduce its emissions by 10 percent or even 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.” A Tyson spokesperson said the company “has a long-held core value to serve as stewards of the land, animals and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.”  The Tyson settlement follows another recent greenwashing complaint — this one against JBS Foods, the world’s largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging the company was misleading consumers with claims it would achieve net zero emissions by 2040.  James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the beef behemoth earlier this month. As a result of the settlement, JBS is required to update its messaging to describe reaching net zero emissions by 2040 as more of an idea or a goal than a concrete plan or commitment from the company. The two settlements underscore just how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts.  “Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely been able to fly under the radar of reporting requirements of any kind,” said Yow, of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agrifood companies do share their emissions, these disclosures are often voluntary and the processes for measuring and reporting impact are not standardized.  That leads to emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” said Yow. She recently authored a report ranking 14 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments — including efforts to report methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and JBS tied for the lowest score out of all 14 companies. Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy,” said Valerie Baron, a national policy director and senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron emphasized that increased transparency from meat and dairy companies is a critical first step to holding them accountable.  Yow agreed. She argued upcoming climate disclosure rules in California and the European Union have the potential to lead the way on policy efforts to measure and rein in emissions in the food system. More and better data can lead to “better collective decision making with policymakers,” she said.  But, she added: “We need to actually know what we’re talking about before we can tackle some of those things.” Editor’s note: Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council are advertisers with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label. on Nov 21, 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.